Subject: [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-11

From: Dan Romascanu via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2020 02:05:34 -0800

Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
Review result: Ready with Nits

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-ioam-data-11
Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
Review Date: 2020-12-05
IETF LC End Date: 2020-12-08
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary:

This is a very useful and rather complex document that discusses the data
fields and associated data types for IOAM that can be encapsulated into a
variety of protocols. It's well written, detailed and accurate. It is READY
from a Gen-ART perspective, with a few editorial comments that I suggest being
addressed before approval or as part of the final editorial process.

Major issues:

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments:

1. How are specific IOAM encapsulations being defined? Will specifications that
define IOAM encapsulations into various protocols be within the scope of the
IPPM WG? of the IETF? Do they require to be RFCs? Some clarification text would
be useful.

2. In Section 5.4.2.12 I found the following:

> The authors
   acknowledge that in some operational cases there is a need for the
   units to be consistent across a packet path through the network,
   hence RECOMMEND the implementations to use standard units such as
   Bytes.

'The authors ... RECOMMEND' seems a little bit odd. The active verb form is not
within the list of keywords as per [RFC2119], also mentioned in Section 3 of
this document. To be on the safe side I would recommend reformulating the
sentence so that the RECOMMENDED form is used. Alternatively, just do not use
capitalization here.

3. In Section 8.7 I found:

> The expert will post the request on the IPPM mailing list, and
   possibly on other relevant mailing lists, to allow for community
   feedback.

I assume that this means the IPPM WG mailing list. The abbreviation of IPPM may
be very familiar for the current audiences, but the situation may change in the
future. The scope even of this document may outlive the WG. I suggest to expand
IPPM in Section 3 and possibly reformulate the sentence so that posting the
request on the IPPM list does not sound as the eternal procedure.