Subject: [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry-12

From: Joel Halpern via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2019 09:55:01 -0700

Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review result: 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 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-initial-registry-12
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review Date: 2019-11-01
IETF LC End Date: 2019-11-06
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: This document is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard

Side note: I presume that as part of the process for
draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry (the normative reference the defines the
structure used in this document) there has been discussion with IANA explicitly
about the fact that this registry has an extremely large number of columns,
some with extremely verbose content, and it will likely take some work for IANA
to determine how to present this in a human-readable fashion?  And the lesser
point that is probably covered by existing procedures, but I wanted to check,
that IANA is prepared to fill in the URLs scattered throughout the document?

Second note:  I did not review the accuracy of the descriptions of the metrics,
but only looked for clarity.  This is material well known to the WG, and mostly
derived from other documents this or closely related working groups have
produced.

Major issues: N/A

Minor issues:
    For those entries that are defining two (or more) closely related metrics,
    should the document actually have two (or more) lines for URL, since the
    text says that IANA is to assign two URLs.  (And the list of differing
    fields should presumably include URL?)

    In the first part of section 5, there is a note about potentially splitting
    the registry entry into two registry entries.  I can not understand the
    note.  The registry is either defined with one entry or defined with two
    entries.  Is this still an open item?  (If so, my "ready" above clearly
    should be "Ready with issues.")  I think it is just an erroneous retention
    of text from earlier?

Nits/editorial comments:
    If there are no roles to define in 5.3.6, shouldn't it say "N/A"

    Some comments and remarks say "None" which makes sense.  Some say
    "Additional (Informational) details for this entry" which seems to be text
    left over from the template that should say "None"?

---

From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2019 20:14:40 +0000

Hi Joel,
Thanks for your review, please see replies below.
Al

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joel Halpern via Datatracker [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, November 1, 2019 12:55 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]
> Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry-12
> 
> Reviewer: Joel Halpern
> Review result: Ready
> 
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__trac.ietf.org_trac_gen_wiki_GenArtfaq&d=DwICaQ&c=LFYZ-
> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=GTgiUHp01_savOvQS49iOt8XRHfRw
> hPgZj-TNotgKGk&s=M0ib3zYg2qffmRujLJv2h_WHQ16W9fOYat9hNtBqcFk&e=>.
> 
> about the fact that this registry has an extremely large number of
> columns, some with extremely verbose content, and it will likely take some work for
> IANA to determine how to present this in a human-readable fashion?  And the
> lesser point that is probably covered by existing procedures, but I wanted to
> check, that IANA is prepared to fill in the URLs scattered throughout the
> document?
[acm] 
Yes and Yes. We prepared a mock-up of the new Registry at various stages
of development. Humbly, it was my idea to make the registry entries both
readable and useful. The IANA reps suggested the mock-up early-on, and we have
shared the different versions with the IPPM WG.  We/IANA plan to make the 
mock-up more widely available (but we failed to do that in time for Last Call).
>     fields should presumably include URL?)
[acm] 
There are sections of the document that define more than one registry entry,
so yes, there will be >1 URLs, etc. in the corresponding rows.
>     should be "Ready with issues.")  I think it is just an erroneous retention
[acm] 
Exactly, it is a note left-stranded by editing later in the section,
thanks for catching it - deleted in the working version.

>     If there are no roles to define in 5.3.6, shouldn't it say "N/A"
[acm] 
Actually, it should define the Roles (Src and Dst) as with other Metrics.
Something went wrong with formatting here - the text below the 
section header disappeared... thanks for catching that!

>     "Additional (Informational) details for this entry" which seems to be 
>     text left over from the template that should say "None"?
[acm] 
Right,  found and replaced in working copy.

---

From: Joel Halpern Direct <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2019 16:00:05 -0500

Thanks Al.  I presumed all the ducks were in a row, but thought I should 
ask to be certain.

Yours,
Joel