Joel, thanks for your review. Ron, thanks for engaging with Joel. I have entered a No Objection ballot. I gather the change will be reflected in the next rev.
Alissa > On Nov 30, 2017, at 4:44 PM, Joel Halpern <j...@joelhalpern.com> wrote: > > Reviewer: Joel Halpern > Review result: Almost Ready > > 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 wait for direction from your > document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-intarea-probe-07 > Reviewer: Joel Halpern > Review Date: 2017-11-30 > IETF LC End Date: 2017-12-13 > IESG Telechat date: 2017-12-14 > > Summary: This document is almost ready for publication as a Proposed Standard > RFC. > > Major issues: > I can not determine from the text why two identification objects are > sometimes allowed, or how they are to be used. The texts seems to indicate > that they can be somehow combined to identify a single probed interface. > But I can not see how. > > Minor issues: > In section 2.1 in describing the usage when the probed interface is > identified by name or ifindex, the text refers to MIBII, RFC 2863. I would > expect to see it refer instead (or at least preferentially) to RFC 7223, > the YANG model for the Interface stack. > > The E bit in the Extended ICMP Echo reply seems a bit odd. Shall we try to > encode all the possible interface types in this field? Shall we try to > distinguish Ethernet directly over fiber from Ethernet over ...? What > about an emulated Ethernet interface (pseudowire, etc.) I do not > understand why this is here, and fear it is ambiguous. > > Nits/editorial comments: > I find the description of the node containing the proxy interface as being > "the probed node" as being somewhat odd, as it is not the node containing > the probed interface. I would have expected it to be called "the proxy > node"? > > Very nitpicky: In section 4, the step reading "If the Code Field is equal > to No Error (0) and the L-bit is clear, set the A-Bit." probably ought to > say "otherwise, clear the A-bit." > > > _______________________________________________ > Int-area mailing list > Int-area@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
