Hi Joel,
Thanks for the review. Responses inline......
Ron
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joel Halpern [mailto:jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 4:45 PM
> To: gen-art@xxxxxxxx
> Cc: draft-ietf-intarea-probe.all@xxxxxxxx; int-area@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-intarea-probe-07
>
> Reviewer: Joel Halpern
> Review result: Almost 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 wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD
> before posting a new version of the draft.
>
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
>
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__trac.ietf.org_trac_gen_wiki_GenArtfaq&d=DwICaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr
> 6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=Fch9FQ82sir-BoLx84hKuKwl-
> AWF2EfpHcAwrDThKP8&m=hKAAxSQXBFWxkxtwUUKzdYcvZ22_3zrp0OZhHK
> V2AH4&s=X_Kje37D5HB_DdICxGgn_TkAqoXymCuJdJetUjwYPy4&e=>.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-intarea-probe-07
> Reviewer: Joel Halpern
> Review Date: 2017-11-30
> IETF LC End Date: 2017-12-13
> IESG Telechat date: 2017-12-14
>
> Summary: This document is almost ready for publication as a Proposed
> Standard RFC.
>
> Major issues:
> I can not determine from the text why two identification objects are
> sometimes allowed, or how they are to be used. The texts seems to
> indicate
> that they can be somehow combined to identify a single probed interface.
> But I can not see how.
[RB ]
Good catch.
At one time I thought that this was necessary because IPv6 link-local addresses are not necessarily unique to the node. So, you might need to probe by IP address and something else (e.g., ifName). However, ifName is unique to the node. So, one instance of the interface identification object is enough.
I will remove that sentence.
>
> Minor issues:
> In section 2.1 in describing the usage when the probed interface is
> identified by name or ifindex, the text refers to MIBII, RFC 2863. I would
> expect to see it refer instead (or at least preferentially) to RFC 7223,
> the YANG model for the Interface stack.
[RB ]
Fair enough. I will make that change in the next version.
>
> The E bit in the Extended ICMP Echo reply seems a bit odd. Shall we try to
> encode all the possible interface types in this field? Shall we try to
> distinguish Ethernet directly over fiber from Ethernet over ...? What
> about an emulated Ethernet interface (pseudowire, etc.) I do not
> understand why this is here, and fear it is ambiguous.
[RB ]
Looking back, I described that badly. This bit is set if the interface is a pseudowire endpoint and it is running Ethernet.
Maybe I should call it the P-bit for Pseudowire endpoint. We don't need to specify what type of pseudowire it is.
What do you think?
>
> Nits/editorial comments:
> I find the description of the node containing the proxy interface as being
> "the probed node" as being somewhat odd, as it is not the node containing
> the probed interface. I would have expected it to be called "the proxy
> node"?
[RB ]
Fair enough. I can make that change in the next revision.
>
> Very nitpicky: In section 4, the step reading "If the Code Field is equal
> to No Error (0) and the L-bit is clear, set the A-Bit." probably ought to
> say "otherwise, clear the A-bit."
>
[RB ]
Fair enough. I can make that change in the next revision.