Brian, Thank you for your GenART review!
I will let the authors comment on and propose edits for the “units” minor issue and the nits. However, please find one comment inline. > On Oct 14, 2017, at 12:39 AM, Brian Carpenter <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Reviewer: Brian Carpenter > Review result: Ready with Issues > > Gen-ART *Last Call* review of > draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam-methods-09 > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed > by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just > like any other last call comments. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam-methods-09.txt > Reviewer: Brian Carpenter > Review Date: 2017-10-14 > IETF LC End Date: 2017-10-25 > IESG Telechat date: 2017-10-26 > > Summary: Ready with issues > -------- > > Comment: > -------- > > The shepherd says: > >> This includes at least two different implementations of >> the model, as well as product and demos at Bits-n-Bytes. > > Shouldn't WGs make routine use of BCP 205, RFC 7942 "Improving > Awareness of Running Code: The Implementation Status Section"? > Yes!!! Although a section in an Internet-Draft is not the most convenient way of tracking running code, it is better than none. At least, it self-contains spec and code status within a single document. As an editor I tend to add it as much as it makes sense. As shepherd/chair for this document, unfortunately, at this stage it is too late for these document to play catch-up with another section, given that: Since this information is necessarily time dependent, it is inappropriate for inclusion in a published RFC. The authors should include a note to the RFC Editor requesting that the section be removed before publication. That said, I would strongly encourage you to discuss this topic and find ways to make more intentional in-the-workflow use of the “”Implementation Status”. This is a good comment but a wrong target. Your comment starts with “Shouldn't WGs”, so this is a comment that ought to be directed to the Wg-chairs mailer, the IESG, early reviewers and Directoragtes, and other more relevant vehicles. Thanks, — Carlos. > Minor Issues: > ------------- > > In the following: > > | +--ro min-delay-value? uint32 > | +--ro max-delay-value? uint32 > | +--ro average-delay-value? uint32 > +--ro session-jitter-statistics > | +--ro time-resolution-value? identityref > | +--ro min-jitter-value? uint32 > | +--ro max-jitter-value? uint32 > | +--ro average-jitter-value? uint32 > > what are the units for the delay-value and jitter-value > elements, and what definition of 'jitter' is intended? > > > identity protocol-id-internet { > base protocol-id; > description > "Internet Protocols."; > } > > It isn't clear what "Internet Protocols" means. It seems totally non-specific. > > Nits: > ----- > > identity protocol-id-propreitary { > base protocol-id; > description > "Propreitary protocol (eg.,IP SLA)."; > > s/propreitary/proprietary/ > s/Propreitary/Proprietary/ > > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
