Last Call Review of draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase-06

Request Review of draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 10)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2017-06-30
Requested 2017-06-16
Authors Ruediger Geib, Clarence Filsfils, Carlos Pignataro, Nagendra Nainar
Draft last updated 2017-06-30
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -06 by Joel Halpern (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -06 by Joel Jaeggli (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -06 by Pete Resnick (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -06 by Takeshi Takahashi (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -09 by Takeshi Takahashi (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Joel Jaeggli 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-spring-oam-usecase-06-opsdir-lc-jaeggli-2017-06-30
Reviewed rev. 06 (document currently at 10)
Review result Has Nits
Review completed: 2017-06-30


I have reviewed 

draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase-06 as par of the OPS directorate review cycle forIETF last call.

In general I think this document is ready to go however I have a couple of concerns that should probably at least be discussed prior to IESG review.

From my vantage point the document is not so much a description of a use case or requirements as it is the architectural wrapper around draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping. It's most helpful in my opinion to review this one as though the other one was the companion document, from this vantage point I think the later document is effectively normatively referenced. Similarly the readiness of the later document (which is a bit earlier in it's lifecycle) raises the question of whether this one is ready to go.

in the security considerations section the document notes:

   As mentioned in the introduction, a PMS monitoring packet should
   never leave the domain where it originated.  It therefore should
   never use stale MPLS or IGP routing information. 

I think is is more accurate to say:

Use of stale MPLS or IGP routing information could cause a PMS monitoring packet to leave the domain where it originated. PMS monitoring packets should not be sent using stale MPLS or IGP routing information.

As it is necessary to know that the information is stale is order to follow the instruction, as is the case with for example convergence events that may be ongoing at the time of diagnostic measurement.