Hi James, Thank you for the review. Please see inline. Cheers, Med > -----Message d'origine----- > De : James Gruessing via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> > Envoyé : samedi 15 janvier 2022 19:50 > À : art@xxxxxxxx > Cc : dots@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-dots-telemetry.all@xxxxxxxx; last- > call@xxxxxxxx > Objet : Artart last call review of draft-ietf-dots-telemetry-19 > > Reviewer: James Gruessing > Review result: Ready with Nits > > This is my review of draft-ietf-dots-telemetry-19 as requested by ARTART > chairs. > > Overall this is a well written document that explains its purpose, > rationale, and technical details for someone like myself with no > previous knowledge of DOTS or its underlying dependent protocols. As > such my focus in this review has been looking at the readability of the > document through the eyes of a future implementer. [Med] Thanks. > > Comments: > > 3.2 - At a few points in this section, the concept of "measurements > should be taken when traffic is 'normal'" is repeated a few times and > done in a way not as clear as it could be. The authors should consider > editing this section to be more concise and avoid repetition. [Med] Found and fixed one sentence that I think is redundant. Not sure if you have identified others. > > 3.3 - Perhaps a clear definition for the word "pipe" belongs in the > terminology section? Although it may appear obvious as to what it means, > it is jargon that is not used in RFC 9132 nor 9133. Consider that a > client split with multiple interfaces/networks/DOTS domains etc may > affect interpretation of the word, and thus the potential value it > should calculate and send. [Med] Sure. Added a new entry to Section 2. > > 4.2 - This section could be expanded to cover quite a few duplicate > pieces of normative language listed throughout later sections - for > example there are many references to 'cuid' being mandatory and should > not be present in PUT/DELETE request bodies. Putting common details in > this section, and exceptions throughout should make interpretation by > implementers easier particularly for the structure of Uri-Path values. [Med] Thank you for the proposal, but we prefer the current version as we have key information in one single place. > > 9 - It may be beneficial to implementers if this section provides > guidance on the use of plain text diagnostic payloads for the additional > error cases this document defines. > [Med] OK. Added a new text to cover this. > Nit: > > 8.2 - Figure 48 shows the target of "https1" not "http1", the text above > refers to the latter. > [Med] Thank you for catching this. Fixed. FWIW, we will ACK your review in the next iteration. A diff to track the changes to address your review can be seen at: https://tinyurl.com/dots-telemetry-latest. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
