Reviewer: Bernie Volz Review result: Ready with Nits I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat these comments just like they would treat comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve them long with any other Last Call comments that have been received. For more details on the INT Directorate, see https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/. Based on my review of the 09 version of draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export, if I was on the IESG I would ballot this document as YES or NO OBJECTION. I did not find any significant issues. I do have the following minor issues that I suggest the authors review and potentially address: - Section 1, Introduction: —- Correct the name of the Edge-to-Edge Option-Type to include (E2E) as per registry and the Proof of Transit option. - Section 3.2, The DEX Option-Type Format —- What MUST (or SHOULD) an implementation do if the length of the option doesn’t match the required multiple of 4 or is either too short or too long (likely the minimum option size and multiple of 4 may already addressed in RFC9197), but what if the too few or too many flag bits are set in the Extension-Flags field given the size of the option? Likely the option should be ignored? - Section 4.2, IOAM DEX Flags —- Would indicating that there are no allocations at present be useful? Perhaps “Bits 0-7 are available for assignment.” Or something similar? - Appendix A, Hop Limit in DIrect Exporting —- The text “The Hop Limit would starts from 0” seems odd. Perhaps “The Hop Limit starts at 0”? Thank you for your work on this document. -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
