Last Call Review of draft-ietf-detnet-use-cases-18
review-ietf-detnet-use-cases-18-genart-lc-resnick-2018-10-04-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-detnet-use-cases
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 19)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2018-10-03
Requested 2018-09-19
Other Reviews
Review State Completed
Reviewer Pete Resnick
Review review-ietf-detnet-use-cases-18-genart-lc-resnick-2018-10-04
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/vHl-bBETixLNmN3vrue_Dn1Gqv4
Reviewed rev. 18 (document currently at 19)
Review result Ready with Nits
Draft last updated 2018-10-04
Review completed: 2018-10-04

Review
review-ietf-detnet-use-cases-18-genart-lc-resnick-2018-10-04

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-detnet-use-cases-18
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
Review Date: 2018-10-04
IETF LC End Date: 2018-10-03
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: Ready with Nits

This was a really cool document to read simply because of the breadth of the industries involved. It clearly is going to need a good grammatical editing pass by the RFC Editor, but none of the errors are the kind that make the text hard to understand. All of my comments below are editorial in nature.

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments: For all of the below, the world does not end if you don't fix them, but please consider:

----

Abstract: The first paragraph of intro seems like a better abstract. I don't think the abstract needs as much detail as you've got in there.

----

The Intro says:
 
   For DetNet, use cases explicitly do not define requirements; The
   DetNet WG will consider the use cases, decide which elements are in
   scope for DetNet, and the results will be incorporated into future
   drafts.
   
Then why was 2.1.4 removed? It seems like it might be useful for historical context.

----

In general, I don't like using "we" in consensus documents because it makes it ambiguous whether the "we" is the "the author(s), "the detnet WG"", "the IETF", or "this document". Additionally, using phrases like "we believe" or "we think" are superfluous in most cases. Search for " we" and think about how to get rid of such uses. A few examples:

2.2 I think you can simply just delete "we believe that". This document is making a statement; no reason to hedge.

4.3 "In the future we expect". Changing to the passive voice solves the problem: "It is expected that in the future"

5.3.2.1 "We would like to see DetNet define such a protocol". Detnet is the author of this document, so "we" here seems really weird.

There are many other examples. Doing a search for " we " and seeing if you can clean them up would be useful.

----

Throughout 3.1.1, 6.1.2, 7.3, 7.4: I presume "###us" is meant to be "###┬Ás". I believe I-Ds are now allowed to have such characters.

----

In 3.3.2.3, there is no discussion about how this relates to NTP. I'm not sure if that is necessary, but it seems odd for an IETF document.

----

I like that you have security considerations sprinkled throughout the document instead of trying to combine them into one big section. However, some of the sections are missing security considerations. For example, I think even I could come up with some security considerations for the mining industry case. SECDIR might have more to say, but I think it's worth adding these.

----

The FQDN idnit is because of Juergen Schmitt's email address, and it is fine.