Peter, thank you for your review. I have entered a No Objection ballot for this document. Lars > On 2022-9-21, at 8:54, Peter Yee via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Reviewer: Peter Yee > 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-dots-telemetry-use-cases-11 > Reviewer: Peter Yee > Review Date: 2022-09-20 > IETF LC End Date: 2022-09-20 > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > Summary: This document gives use cases showing how RFC 9244 can be employed for > to convey DOTS telemetry. It seems perfectly fine as an informational adjunct > to RFC 9244, giving more involved examples. > > Major issues: None. > > Minor issues: None. > > Nits/editorial comments: > > Page 3, section 3, 1st paragraph: insert “the” before “DOTS telemetry > specifications” and change “specifications” to “specification”. > > Page 4, section 3.1.1, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: delete “such”. Change “is” > to “are”. > > Page 4, section 3.1.1, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: change “recent” to > “recently”. Change “Tps” to “Tbps”, unless you believe that 1 transaction per > second is a lot of traffic. One tablespoon might be. ;-) > > Page 7, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: change “identifies” to “identify”. Change > “of” to “about”. > > Page 7, 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence: delete the first two commas (bracketing > “then”). > > Page 7, section 3.1.2, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: change “under attack time” > to “at the time of an attack”. > > Page 9, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: change “of” to “on”. > > Page 9, 1st paragraph, 4th sentence: delete “each”. > > Page 9, 1st paragraph, 5th sentence: change “atribute” to “attribute”. > > Page 10, section 3.1.3, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: delete “an”. > > Page 12, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: change “of” to “about”. Delete “a” after > “using”. > > Page 12, 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence: delete “On the other hands,” and > capitalize the ‘t’ in “the”. Insert “the” before “volume”. > > Page 12, section 3.1.4, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: delete the comma after > “Short”. Change “internet” to “Internet”. > > Page 12, section 3.1.4, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: considering inserting > “salient” before “feature”. Insert “it” before “start” and change “start” to > “starts”. Change “go” to “goes” in both occurrences in the sentence. Insert > “then” before “ back to maximum”. > > Page 12, section 3.1.4, 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence: delete “for them”. Insert > “such” before “an attack”. Change “by” to “using a”. Change “it” to “this”. > > Page 12, section 3.1.4, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence: insert “the” before > “attack traffic”. > > Page 14, 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence: change “rate-limit” to “rate-limiting of”. > > Page 14, 2nd paragraph: change “gatherd” to “gathered”. > > Page 15, section 3.1.5, 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence: change “suspecious” to > “suspicious”. > > Page 15, section 3.1.5, 1st paragraph, 4th sentence: delete “an”. > > Page 15, 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence: change “as below” to “that”. > > Page 15, 3rd paragraph, 3rd sentence: add a comma after “total attack > connection”. > > Page 17, Figure 11: change “vulnerbilities” to “vulnerabilities” twice. > > Page 19, 1st paragraph, 4th sentence: delete the two commas bracketing “then”. > Change the first space after “e.g.” to a comma. > > Page 19, section 3.2, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: change “counter measure” to > “countermeasure”. > > Page 19, section 3.2, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence: change “counter measure” to > “countermeasures” (note the plural). > > Page 19, section 3.2, 2nd paragraph, last sentence: append a comma after > “”total attack traffic percentiles”. Change “detail” to “details”. > > Page 21, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: insert “the” before > “total-pipe-capacity”. Insert “the” before “DOTS”. > > Page 22, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: change “mitugation” to “mitigation”. > > Page 22, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: change “reports” to “report”. > > Page 22, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: change “system” to “systems”, presuming > that there can be more than one DMS reporting to the orchestrator. For the > words “sends them”, what does “them” mean? I’m assuming that the orchestrator > creates a single, integrated, deduplicated report, so I’m not sure what “them” > is. > > Page 22, section 3.3.1, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: change “internet” to > “Internet”. > > Page 22, section 3.3.1, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: delete “On the other hand,” > > Page 22, section 3.3.1, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence: on the assumption that > multiple flow connectors are allowed, as shown in Figure 16: change > “collector’s” to “collectors’”. > > Page 22, section 3.3.1, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence: change “collector” to > “collectors” on the same assumption as the previous comment. If that assumption > is incorrect, ignore both comments. Also considering changing the figure to > have a single flow collector shown in that case. > > Page 25, 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence: delete the two commas bracketing “then”. > > Page 25, section 3.3.2, 2nd sentence: insert “a” or “the” before “baseline”. > Insert “the” before “DMSes”. > > Page 25, section 3.3.2, 3rd sentence: change “collector” to “collectors”. > > Page 25, Figure 18: I’m not sure what “[ Dst ]” means. It doesn’t appear > elsewhere in this specification or in RFC 9244. Perhaps “destination”? > > Page 26, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: I can’t parse this sentence. Consider > rewriting it. > > > > -- > last-call mailing list > last-call@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
