Subject: [Gen-art] (full/final) review of draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-overview-05.txt

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 11:21:48 +0200

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on 
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at 
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments 
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-overview-05.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20110804
IETF LC End Date: 20110811
IESG Telechat date: unknown

Summary: Almost Ready

Major issues: None

Minor issues: as I explained in the previous review, I deeply disagree
with the presentation of "ICMP Ping" for traceroute.
If traceroute (and its path MTU discovery variants) is included in
the document, IMHO it must be the UDP version (the historical, documented
in an RFC and most reliable one).

Nits/editorial comments:
 - 3.2.2 page 10 (twice), 4.2.1 page 14 and 4.10.3.4 page 27:
  e.g. -> e.g.,

 - 4.2.2 page 14 and 4.10.1 page 25 (twice): i.e. -> i.e.,

 - 4.5.3 page 18: acknowledgement -> acknowledgment
 (for spelling consistency)

 - 5 page 31: IMHO the Security Considerations should be argumented
  (and IMHO it is not true that OAM and security are really orthogonal)

Regards

[email-masked]

PS: I've downgraded the ICMP traceroute point to minor.

---

From: Ronald Bonica <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 08:46:46 -0400

> PS: I've downgraded the ICMP traceroute point to minor.

Francis,

Thanks for catching this one. While it may not be major, it is embarrassing. I have proposed alternative text.

                                                         Ron