Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2680-04
review-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2680-04-opsdir-lc-kumari-2014-04-03-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2680 |
|---|---|---|
| Requested rev. | no specific revision (document currently at 05) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | Ops Directorate (opsdir) | |
| Deadline | 2014-03-25 | |
| Requested | 2014-02-14 | |
| Authors | Len Ciavattone, Ruediger Geib, Al Morton, Matthias Wieser | |
| Draft last updated | 2014-04-03 | |
| Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -04 by Joel Halpern
(diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -04 by Warren Kumari (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Warren Kumari |
| State | Completed | |
| Review | review-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2680-04-opsdir-lc-kumari-2014-04-03 | |
| Reviewed rev. | 04 (document currently at 05) | |
| Review result | Ready | |
| Review completed: | 2014-04-03 |
Review
review-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2680-04-opsdir-lc-kumari-2014-04-03
I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the operational area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. Overview: I reviewed draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2680-04 - "Test Plan and Results for Advancing RFC 2680 on the Standards Track" This document memo proposes advancing a performance metric RFC along the standards track. I see no operational impact in this document being published. ------ Personal notes: Note: I have not been following this document, nor the IPPM WG. "The conclusion reached is that [RFC2680] should be advanced on the Standards Track with modifications. The revised text of RFC 2680bis is ready for review [I-D.morton-ippm-2680-bis], but awaits work-in progress to update the IPPM Framework [RFC2330]. Therefore, this memo documents the information to support [RFC2680] advancement, and the approval of RFC2680bis is left for future action." It seems odd to me to progress a document published 14 years ago if there is a -bis in the works, but I did not follow (or research!) and of the background discussions. If that's what the WG / IESG decided, no worries... Incredibly tiny nit: The ASCII art diagrams a nicely done, but the second one has some extra parentheses in the Internet "cloud". My OCDness forced me to mention this!