Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-04

From: Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 12:25:22 +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 wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
Document: draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-04
Reviewer: Christer Holmberg
Review Date: 7 May 2012
IETF LC End Date: 21 March 2012
IESG Telechat date: 10 May 2012
Summary: The draft is ready for publication, with a couple of editorial nits.
Major issues: -
Minor issues: -
Nits/editorial comments:

(The comments also applied to the -03 version, and I apologize for not bringing them up when I reviewed that version.)
- General: G-ACh is mentioned throughout the document, but only in section 4 is there a reference to RFC 5586. I suggest to add a reference on first occurrence at least to section 1. It would probably be good also in section 3.

- Section 1: What is the purpose of the last paragraph, talking about IETF Experts not agreeing? For someone who has not followed the work, it seems as little strange.
- Section 3: The text says "The G-ACh Type assigned by this document". I guess it would be better to say e.g. "based on this document".
Regards,
Christer

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 14:49:10 +0100

All (copying the IESG),

I do sincerely welcome all reviews of all I-Ds that I sponsor or where I am the
responsible AD. I even mainly welcome them when I am an author.

However, when Directorate or Review Team reviews come in so long after the end
of IETF Last Call, and especially when they arrive after the I-D has been
updated to address last call comments, I do grind my teeth a bit.

Additionally, when Directorate or Review Team reviews are repeated and bring up
new issues (even minor ones) that were in the document at the time of the first
review but didn't warrant a comment at that time, I feel like I am being asked
for a rock.

Anyway, thanks Chris for caring enough to read the document for a second time,
and see in line for answers.

> (The comments also applied to the -03 version, and I apologize for
> not bringing them up when I reviewed that version.)
>
> - General: G-ACh is mentioned throughout the document, but only in 
> section 4 is there a reference to RFC 5586. I suggest to add a reference
> on first occurrence at least to section 1. It would probably be good also
> in section 3.

Added RFC Editor note

Section1 para 2

s/Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) Type/Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh)
Type [RFC5586]

> - Section 1: What is the purpose of the last paragraph, talking about IETF
>  Experts not agreeing? For someone who has not followed the work, it
>  seems as little strange.

I am not sure how to answer you without giving a long and detailed history of
this work covering the last four years. Such a history is without doubt
contentious.

You might read the referenced I-D for an alternate viewpoint. Or you might speak
privately with any number of people involved with this work.

In summary, this text is necessary to obtain consensus on the publication of
this document, and is agreed by the document author.

> - Section 3: The text says "The G-ACh Type assigned by this document". I guess
> it would be better to say e.g. "based on this document".

Well, of course, "based on" is also not right :-)

One might say, "...assigned by the IANA as a result of the request contained in
this document."
To me that is over-baked. What is more, during late-stage IANA processing, the
"request" text in I-Ds is replaced with "action" text that describes what action
IANA has taken.

Common usage is that a document that is approved for publication and that makes
an IANA request is the document that made the assignment or created the
registry.

So we won't make any change for that.

Cheers,
Adrian

---

From: Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 19:51:44 +0200

Hi Adrian,

I will not go more into the comment regarding IETF Experts not agreeing. If the paragraph was needed in order to move the work forward, I don't want to mess that up :)

I am happy if the 5586 reference is fixed, which you have requested the RFC editor to do.

Once again, I appologize for not giving these comments earlier.

Regards,

Christer

________________________________________
From: Adrian Farrel [[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 4:49 PM
To: Christer Holmberg; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Gen-ART review of draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-04

All (copying the IESG),

Added RFC Editor note

Section1 para 2

Cheers,
Adrian