Reviewer: Pete Resnick
Review result: Ready with Issues

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

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang-07
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
Review Date: 2018-04-16
IETF LC End Date: 2018-04-27
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary:

This document appears ready to go forward. The only "issue" I have here might
end up being an editorial issue, but I list it as a Minor issue because it
might be substantive.

Major issues:

None.

Minor issues:

In the paragraph after Figure 3, it says, "and subsequent values are
monotonically increasing". I'm not sure I understand what that means. If 0 is
the highest priority, then 1 is a *lower* priority than 0, not an increasing
priority. If you are trying to say that the numeric value of the priority field
is increasing by 1 for each subsequent value, then "monotonically increasing"
is wrong; the sequence "0 2 5 36" is monotonically increasing. You'd say
instead, "and subsequent values increase by one". If all you mean is that
values start at 0 and go up from there, I think you should just delete the
entire phrase; it doesn't add anything and strikes me as confusing.

Nits/editorial comments:

Why are RFC 4086, RFC 8018, and ietf-ippm-metric-registry Informative
References instead of Normative? The uses appear to be normative.

I'm not clear why the examples were split between Section 6 and Appendix A;
seems like you could just use the long one in section 6 and explain only the
important bits. I also note that neither of them make any claims about
normativity: That is, most examples in documents I see always say something
like, "If there is a conflict between anything here and the syntax in the
model, the model wins." Is that not the case in these sorts of model documents?

Pet peeve: Except in Acknowledgements, I really don't like the use of "we" in
IETF documents (even though it's becoming more and more common). It's not clear
to whom it refers (the WG? the authors? the IETF?). In most places, it can be
replaced with "This document", or using passive voice (e.g., s/We define X as/X
is defined as). There are only 4 occurrences: Abstract, 1.1, 3, and 3.1. Easy
enough to change.

Note to shepherd: In the shepherding writeup, question 1 is not answered
correctly. This document is going for *Proposed* Standard, not *Internet*
Standard. Further, there is no explanation for why this should be a standards
track document (though I believe the answer is pretty straightforward). You
should go correct that. While you're at it, you can update answer 15, as that
nit was corrected.


_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Reply via email to