Joel, thanks for your review. Al, thanks for your response. I entered a No Objection ballot. Alissa > On Nov 3, 2019, at 4:00 PM, Joel Halpern Direct <jmh.direct@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Thanks Al. I presumed all the ducks were in a row, but thought I should ask to be certain. > > Yours, > Joel > > On 11/3/2019 3:14 PM, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) wrote: >> Hi Joel, >> Thanks for your review, please see replies below. >> Al >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Joel Halpern via Datatracker [mailto:noreply@xxxxxxxx] >>> Sent: Friday, November 1, 2019 12:55 PM >>> To: gen-art@xxxxxxxx >>> Cc: last-call@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry.all@xxxxxxxx; >>> ippm@xxxxxxxx >>> Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry-12 >>> >>> Reviewer: Joel Halpern >>> Review result: 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- >>> 3A__trac.ietf.org_trac_gen_wiki_GenArtfaq&d=DwICaQ&c=LFYZ- >>> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=GTgiUHp01_savOvQS49iOt8XRHfRw >>> hPgZj-TNotgKGk&s=M0ib3zYg2qffmRujLJv2h_WHQ16W9fOYat9hNtBqcFk&e=>. >>> >>> Document: draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry-12 >>> Reviewer: Joel Halpern >>> Review Date: 2019-11-01 >>> IETF LC End Date: 2019-11-06 >>> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat >>> >>> Summary: This document is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard >>> >>> Side note: I presume that as part of the process for >>> draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry (the normative reference the defines the >>> structure used in this document) there has been discussion with IANA explicitly >>> about the fact that this registry has an extremely large number of >>> columns, some with extremely verbose content, and it will likely take some work for >>> IANA to determine how to present this in a human-readable fashion? And the >>> lesser point that is probably covered by existing procedures, but I wanted to >>> check, that IANA is prepared to fill in the URLs scattered throughout the >>> document? >> [acm] >> Yes and Yes. We prepared a mock-up of the new Registry at various stages >> of development. Humbly, it was my idea to make the registry entries both >> readable and useful. The IANA reps suggested the mock-up early-on, and we have >> shared the different versions with the IPPM WG. We/IANA plan to make the >> mock-up more widely available (but we failed to do that in time for Last Call). >>> >>> Second note: I did not review the accuracy of the descriptions of the metrics, >>> but only looked for clarity. This is material well known to the WG, and mostly >>> derived from other documents this or closely related working groups have >>> produced. >>> >>> Major issues: N/A >>> >>> Minor issues: >>> For those entries that are defining two (or more) closely related metrics, >>> should the document actually have two (or more) lines for URL, since the >>> text says that IANA is to assign two URLs. (And the list of differing >>> fields should presumably include URL?) >> [acm] >> There are sections of the document that define more than one registry entry, >> so yes, there will be >1 URLs, etc. in the corresponding rows. >>> >>> In the first part of section 5, there is a note about potentially splitting >>> the registry entry into two registry entries. I can not understand the >>> note. The registry is either defined with one entry or defined with two >>> entries. Is this still an open item? (If so, my "ready" above clearly >>> should be "Ready with issues.") I think it is just an erroneous retention >>> of text from earlier? >> [acm] >> Exactly, it is a note left-stranded by editing later in the section, >> thanks for catching it - deleted in the working version. >>> >>> Nits/editorial comments: >>> If there are no roles to define in 5.3.6, shouldn't it say "N/A" >> [acm] >> Actually, it should define the Roles (Src and Dst) as with other Metrics. >> Something went wrong with formatting here - the text below the >> section header disappeared... thanks for catching that! >>> Some comments and remarks say "None" which makes sense. Some say >>> "Additional (Informational) details for this entry" which seems to be >>> text left over from the template that should say "None"? >> [acm] >> Right, found and replaced in working copy. >>> > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
