Thanks Roni! I'm glad you took this on, the long sets of comments/DISCUSS from Benjamin kept me very busy while I was flying again - literally all day on Sunday to reach Kona, HI. You'll see those replies after I sort-out a few more details today, also Magnus' DISCUSS. It seemed as though whenever all DISCUSSes on a memo were cleared, someone pooped in a new DISCUSS to be sure that neither memo was Approved, even something trivial. Benjamin entered his DISCUSS after the telechat! Have you seen this with other memos? I'll check and work these-in next, Al > -----Original Message----- > From: Roni Even (A) [mailto:roni.even@xxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Monday, December 9, 2019 8:10 AM > To: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <acm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; gen-art@xxxxxxxx; last- > call@xxxxxxxx > Cc: ippm@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry.all@xxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: [ippm] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-metric- > registry-20 > > Hi Al, > > Here are the proposed changes for the -22 version. See if they make sense > > > Section 3 bullet 1 has RFC change (up to and including the publication of > one or more RFCs or I-Ds describing it) to (up to and including the > publication of one or more immutable document such as an RFC) > > Section 7.1.2 change “Spec: RFC number and major section number that > specifies this” to “Spec: an immutable document, for RFC the RFC number > and major section number that specifies this” > > > Section 7.1.3 change “The URL SHALL reference a target file that is HTML- > formated and contains URLs to referenced sections of HTML-ized RFCs” to > “The URL SHALL reference a target file that is HTML-formated and contains > URLs to referenced sections of HTML-ized reference document” > > Section 7.1.7 change “a new RFC is published that changes the registry > format.” to “a new document is published that changes the registry > format.” > > Section 7.2 change “This category includes columns to prompt all necessary > details related to the metric definition, including the RFC reference and > values of input factors, called fixed parameters, which are left open in > the RFC but have a particular value defined by the performance metric.” > to “This category includes columns to prompt all necessary details > related to the metric definition, including the document reference and > values of input factors, called fixed parameters, which are left open in > the document but have a particular value defined by the performance > metric.” > > Note that In 7.2.1 talks about immutable document > > Section 7.3.1 change “for implementations referring to the RFC text.” to > “for implementations referring to the immutable document text.” > > Section 8.1 first paragraph change “compliance with other applicable > Performance Metric-related RFCs,” to “compliance with other applicable > Performance Metric-related documents,” > > In section 10.3 “The "Reference" column will include an RFC number, an > approved specification designator from another standards body, other > immutable document, or the contact person.” Remove “or the contact person” > > > Section 11.2 change “including the RFC reference” to “including the > document reference” > > Section 11.3 change “to relevant sections of the RFC(s) ” to relevant > sections of the document(s)” > > > Roni > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) [mailto:acm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > > Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2019 4:04 PM > > To: Roni Even (A); gen-art@xxxxxxxx; last-call@xxxxxxxx > > Cc: ippm@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry.all@xxxxxxxx; Mirja > > Kuehlewind; Alissa Cooper > > Subject: RE: [ippm] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-metric- > registry- > > 20 > > > > Hi Roni, > > > > Please keep in mind that this is not a global replacement for RFC -> > > Specification. > > > > Some steps in the process apply only to IESG review with IANA review. > > Others apply more broadly and we only need to change those. > > > > Please help by making your recommendation for changes keeping in mind > > those two categories. > > > > thanks, > > Al > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Roni Even (A) [mailto:roni.even@xxxxxxxxxx] > > > Sent: Thursday, December 5, 2019 3:16 AM > > > To: gen-art@xxxxxxxx; last-call@xxxxxxxx; MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) > > > <acm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: ippm@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry.all@xxxxxxxx; Mirja > > > Kuehlewind <ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Alissa Cooper <alissa@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Subject: RE: [ippm] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-metric- > > > registry-20 > > > > > > Hi, > > > I think that Al addressed most of them, noted the following are still > > > not clear > > > > > > Section 3 bullet 1 has RFC > > > Section 7.1.2 for "spec:" talks about RFC, should be more general say > > > if the specification is RFC then ... > > > Section 7.1.2 talks only about RFC > > > Section 7.1.3 > > > Section 7.1.7 > > > Section 7.2 (In 7.2.1 talks about immutable document) Section 7.3.1 > > > end of the first paragraph Section 8.1 first paragraph and third > > > paragraph Section 11.2 Section 11.3 Section 11.5.2 what is the > > > requestor is it a document or person? > > > > > > > > > New comment: > > > > > > In section 10.3 can the reference be a contact person since the policy > > > is specification required > > > > > > Roni Even > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa@xxxxxxxxxx] > > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2019 8:00 PM > > > > To: Mirja Kuehlewind > > > > Cc: Roni Even (A); MORTON, ALFRED C (AL); Roni Even; > > > > gen-art@xxxxxxxx; > > > last- > > > > call@xxxxxxxx; ippm@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-ippm-metric- > > > registry.all@xxxxxxxx > > > > Subject: Re: [ippm] Genart last call review of > > > > draft-ietf-ippm-metric- > > > registry- > > > > 20 > > > > > > > > Hi Mirja, > > > > > > > > > On Dec 4, 2019, at 11:35 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind > > > > > <ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi Alissa, > > > > > > > > > > Section 10.1 say: > > > > > > > > > > Registration Procedure: Specification Required > > > > > > > > > > What else do you think is needed? > > > > > > > > What I put in my ballot: > > > > > > > > "I'm confused about what the registration policy is for metrics in > > > > the > > > new > > > > registry. If it is Specification Required, then the places in the > > > document that > > > > assume new metrics are defined in an RFC need to be generalized, > > > > because Specification Required need not involve any RFC at all.” > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > Alissa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mirja > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On 4. Dec 2019, at 17:15, Alissa Cooper <alissa@xxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> Roni, thanks for your review. Al, thanks for your response. I > > > > >> entered > > > a > > > > DISCUSS ballot to get the registration policy clarified. > > > > >> > > > > >> Alissa > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >>> On Nov 1, 2019, at 11:54 AM, Roni Even (A) > > > > >>> <roni.even@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Hi Al, > > > > >>> I saw that IANA was consulted during the work. > > > > >>> I was wondering what will be the actual text that will be > > > > >>> written in > > > the > > > > IANA registry, I expected section 10 to describe it. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Registration Procedure(s) > > > > >>> Reference > > > > >>> Note > > > > >>> > > > > >>> I am not sure yet what is the Registration Procedure and what > > > > >>> will be written in the Note > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Thanks > > > > >>> Roni > > > > >>> > > > > >>> -----Original Message----- > > > > >>> From: Gen-art [mailto:gen-art-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of > > > > MORTON, > > > > >>> ALFRED C (AL) > > > > >>> Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2019 11:52 PM > > > > >>> To: Roni Even; gen-art@xxxxxxxx > > > > >>> Cc: last-call@xxxxxxxx; > > > > >>> draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry.all@xxxxxxxx; ippm@xxxxxxxx > > > > >>> Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of > > > > >>> draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-20 > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Hi Roni, > > > > >>> thanks for your comments, please see replies below. > > > > >>> Al > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> -----Original Message----- > > > > >>>> From: Roni Even via Datatracker [mailto:noreply@xxxxxxxx] > > > > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2019 4:25 AM > > > > >>>> To: gen-art@xxxxxxxx > > > > >>>> Cc: last-call@xxxxxxxx; ippm@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-ippm-metric- > > > > >>>> registry.all@xxxxxxxx > > > > >>>> Subject: Genart last call review of > > > > >>>> draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-20 > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Reviewer: Roni Even > > > > >>>> 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 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=mLefZkw5Y_ld2AFv2 > > > > msgpz > > > > >>>> OV5 Z7lZ > > > > >>>> JkKTdUQf48X15g&s=uUg9ktSDILsslqK-rG4YIc3gMW0n6oCa- > > > > 7Dk0xtFZRo&e=>. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Document: draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-?? > > > > >>>> Reviewer: Roni Even > > > > >>>> Review Date: 2019-10-29 > > > > >>>> IETF LC End Date: 2019-11-06 > > > > >>>> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Summary: > > > > >>>> The document is almost ready for publication as a BCP document > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Major issues: > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Minor issues: > > > > >>>> 1. From reading the document it looks to me that the > > > > >>>> registration policy should be specification required which also > > > > >>>> requires expert > > > > review. > > > > >>> [acm] > > > > >>> I understand that perspective. In early review with IANA we > > > > >>> decided > > > on > > > > Expert Review partly because two elements of registry entries > > > > require references to immutable documents, such as standards > > specifications. > > > > >>> So the requirement for specifications could be seen as built-in. > > > > >>> But we may change to Specification Required now, the last IANA > > > review > > > > is in-progress. > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> 2. My understanding is that for registration a document is > > > > >>>> required , not necessarily and RFC, but in multiple places in > > > > >>>> the document ( 7.3, 7.3.1, 8.2 ,...) the text talks about RFC > and not > > document. > > > > >>> [acm] > > > > >>> Yes, a few of those slipped through, thanks. > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> 3. I am not sure if section 6 is needed in the published > > > > >>>> document > > > based > > > > on its content. > > > > >>> [acm] > > > > >>> it's fairly easy for new implementers to pick-up an IPPM RFC > > > > >>> (even a > > > > STD) and choose parameters that meet their needs. But for the > > > > additional advantage of measurement comparisons, more context is > > > > needed. Some may even ask why this registry requires the many > > > > details. Answer: See section 6. > > > > >>> A little history is good. Very few have been joining IPPM > > > > >>> sessions > > > long > > > > enough to know this history. > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> If it will remain then in 6.1 > > > > >>>> first paragraph the reference should be to section 5 and not to > > > section > > > > 6. > > > > >>> [acm] ok > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> 4. > > > > >>>> In sections 10.2 and 10.3 there are guidance taken from this > > > document. > > > > >>>> I think that the for IANA it should say in the registry note > > > > >>>> that the registration must comply with RFCXXX (this document), > > > > >>>> I assume that there is no need to repeat all this text in these > > > > >>>> sections in > > > the > > > > registry note. > > > > >>> [acm] > > > > >>> I have said on a few occasions that almost the entire memo > > > > >>> contains > > > > IANA Considerations. Nevertheless, we wrote and reviewed the memo > > > > and (then wrote) the separate IANA section with IANA's help. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> I have implemented the agreed changes above in the working > > version. > > > > >>> Thanks again! > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Nits/editorial comments: > > > > >>>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> _______________________________________________ > > > > >>> Gen-art mailing list > > > > >>> Gen-art@xxxxxxxx > > > > >>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- > > > 3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_gen-2Dart&d=DwIGaQ&c=LFYZ- > > > o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=_6cen3Hn-e_hOm0BhY7aIpA58dd19Z9qGQsr8- > > 6zYMI&m=gzua > > > d-V- > > > > > BNukSa9xX1XrkjMj1QZalBXLPIiwWdbDATE&s=vQLx27IlYqGWfgVPigggpoWFf > > BJX5TJx > > > z8oU > > > Pu2NQp0&e= > > > > >>> > > > > >>> _______________________________________________ > > > > >>> ippm mailing list > > > > >>> ippm@xxxxxxxx > > > > >>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- > > > 3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_ippm&d=DwIGaQ&c=LFYZ- > > > o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=_6cen3Hn-e_hOm0BhY7aIpA58dd19Z9qGQsr8- > > 6zYMI&m=gzua > > > d-V- > > > > > BNukSa9xX1XrkjMj1QZalBXLPIiwWdbDATE&s=HKT1QAvRtO4211JXIR5edFGw > > 5AS6H94f > > > 4tFm > > > saAwWRQ&e= > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
