Last Call Review of draft-sheffer-rfc6982bis-
review-sheffer-rfc6982bis-opsdir-lc-vyncke-2016-06-13-00

Request Review of draft-sheffer-rfc6982bis
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 03)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2016-05-31
Requested 2016-04-18
Other Reviews Secdir Last Call review of -00 by Adam Montville (diff)
Review State Completed
Reviewer Éric Vyncke
Review review-sheffer-rfc6982bis-opsdir-lc-vyncke-2016-06-13
Posted at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ops-dir/current/msg01935.html
Review result Has Nits
Draft last updated 2016-06-13
Review completed: 2016-06-13

Review
review-sheffer-rfc6982bis-opsdir-lc-vyncke-2016-06-13




I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that
 are not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments.














[The review was asked for -01 but since then -03 has been published, so, reviewing the latest one]













Abstract:


This document describes a simple non mandatory process that allows authors of Internet-Drafts to record the status of known implementations by including an Implementation Status section (which would be removed before publication as RFC). The intended
 status is BCP.










Here is my review:










Section 2: it states "this section can contain information about the interoperability of any or all of the implementations", rather than "can", I would suggest the use of "should" because the goal of having multiple implementations is exactly to test for
 interoperability.










In the same vein, quite often a protocol specification I-D has companion I-Ds about management (yang model for example), i would suggest that this section also includes either information about those companion I-Ds or a link to the relevant section of
 the companion I-Ds.










Section 3 about alternative formats, it is indeed nice to leave the door open to any future tool to keep track of implementations outside of an I-D section: this is probably more flexible, easier to update and more scalable. At the expense perhaps of lack
 of control?










Section 4, I like the aspect of using this section to make interoperability test.










Hope it helps to polish this nice idea,










-éric