|
Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase-06
2017-06-29 11:23:11
On 29 Jun 2017, at 2:28, Ruediger(_dot_)Geib(_at_)telekom(_dot_)de wrote:
Hi Pete,
thanks for proposing to make this an Applicability Statement, BCP or
standard.
I don't object, but if the status of this draft is supposed to be
changed, my chairs and AD need to support this. Bruno and Alvaro,
what's your view on Pete's proposal? We may have to invest some more
time and text then. I personally don't object to "informational" as an
aim, but if that means removing major parts of the content, I'd be
rather unhappy.
Thanks for considering this. IMO, I don't see why doing this as PS would
require removing anything; lots of PSs have informational content in
them.
Pete, also Alvaro gave us a routing AD review on Friday, 16. June (and
he had comments). Bruno's shephard review as part of the WG Last Call
resulted in better structuring and definitions in the document. So
far, no AD or reviewer "tends to ignore [this] Informational "use
case" document". You’re the third AD to comment and ask for changes
(and I recall to have had serious AD and IESG reviews with other
informationals).
Oh, I didn't mean to say that serious reviews of Informational docs
didn't happen; it quite often does. But the bar is lower, and I know for
myself (both as a participant and as an AD) that sometimes I would skip
reading a particular document because I had run out of time and "it was
only going for Informational", or see something that I didn't like in a
Informational document and say, "Well, it's only going for
Informational, so I'm not going to cause too much of a fuss". For a
document that is actually a consensus specification of an IETF WG, that
shouldn't be allowed to happen; everybody should be aware that this
document should get the full scrutiny of a standards-track document.
Regards,
Ruediger
Cheers,
pr
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Pete Resnick [mailto:presnick(_at_)qti(_dot_)qualcomm(_dot_)com]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 28. Juni 2017 20:31
An: gen-art(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Cc: spring(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase(_dot_)all(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Betreff: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase-06
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
Review result: Not 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-spring-oam-usecase-06
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
Review Date: 2017-06-28
IETF LC End Date: 2017-06-30
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
Summary: Not Ready for publication as Informational, but might be
Ready for publication as Proposed Standard
Major issues:
This is an admittedly unusual review. I have read through the entire
document, and the technical work seems fine, but is well beyond my
technical expertise, so I can't really comment on the technical
correctness. However, it is absolutely clear to me that this is *not*
a "use case" document at all and I don't think it's appropriate as an
Informational document. This is clearly a
*specification* of a path monitoring system. It gives guidances as to
required, recommended, and optional parameters, and specifies how to
use different protocol pieces. It is at the very least what RFC 2026
refers to as an "Applicability Statement (AS)" (see RFC 2026, sec.
3.2). It *might* be a BCP, but it is not strictly giving "common
guidelines for policies and operations"
(2026, sec. 5), so I don't really think that's right, and instead this
should be offered for Proposed Standard. Either way, I think
Informational is not correct. Importantly, I think there is a good
likelihood that this document has not received the appropriate amount
of review; people tend to ignore Informational "use case" documents,
and there have been no Last Call comments beyond Joel's RTG Area
Review. Even in IESG review, an Informational document only takes the
sponsoring AD to approve; every other AD can summarily ignore the
document, or even ballot ABSTAIN, and the document will still be
published (though that does not normally happen). This document should
have much more than that level of review. I strongly recommend to the
WG and AD that this document be withdrawn as an Informational document
and resubmitted for Proposed Standard and have that level of review
and scrutiny applied to it.
Minor issues:
None.
Nits/editorial comments:
This document refers to RFC 4379, which has been obsoleted by RFC
8029. It seems like the references should be updated.
--
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478
|
|