Last Call Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-11
review-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-11-intdir-lc-von-hugo-2024-04-25-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-10
Requested revision 10 (document currently at 17)
Type Last Call Review
Team Internet Area Directorate (intdir)
Deadline 2024-04-26
Requested 2024-04-08
Requested by Mahesh Jethanandani
Authors Mohamed Boucadair , Benoît Claise
I-D last updated 2024-04-25
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -11 by Joel M. Halpern (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -11 by Tero Kivinen (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -11 by Wesley Eddy (diff)
Intdir Last Call review of -11 by Dirk Von Hugo (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -15 by Tero Kivinen (diff)
Tsvart Early review of -05 by Wesley Eddy (diff)
Opsdir Early review of -05 by Yingzhen Qu (diff)
Intdir Early review of -05 by Dirk Von Hugo (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Dirk Von Hugo
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh by Internet Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-dir/ZcyiGPZK-1b3xBJ6swUY4n-tPME
Reviewed revision 11 (document currently at 17)
Result Ready
Completed 2024-04-25
review-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-11-intdir-lc-von-hugo-2024-04-25-00
Dear authors, intarea community,
as assigned INT directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh my
comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors.
Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat these comments just like they
would treat comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve them along
with any other Last Call comments that have been received. For more details on
the INT Directorate, see <https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/>.

Based on my review, if I was on the IESG I would ballot this document as YES.

The content of vers. 11 has improved  and the additional IE specifications as
well the data type specification seem to me useful and reasonable. I couldn't
detect any minor nits.

Regarding sect. 8.4 I am not sure whether the term 'mirror' shouldn't be
replaced by 'correspond' since only the protocol numbers are represented by
identical values while 'Label' and 'Keyword' sometimes differ in this document
and [IANA-Protocol]? So I would suggest to say: The "Label" corresponds to the
"keyword" of an EH as indicated in [IANA-Protocols], while the "Protocol
Number" mirrors the "Protocol Number" in [IANA-EH] and [IANA-Protocols].

In addition I would like to clarify whether the term 'otherwise' in sect. 8.4
means 'in all other cases when not a new code is assigned to an IPv6 EH in
[IANA-EH] but an existing code in the registry is proposed to be modified'?

Thanks a lot and best regards
Dirk