Subject: [Gen-art] gen-art last call review of draft-ietf-opsawg-mpls-tp-oam-def-09

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 15:43:05 -0400

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
< http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-opsawg-mpls-tp-oam-def-09
Reviewer:  Scott Brim
Review Date:  12 April 2011
IETF LC End Date:  20 April 2011
IESG Telechat date: (if known)

Summary:  Not ready for publication as a BCP

Major issues:

The goal is good, but imho the draft is poorly organized, with the
result that it does not achieve its purpose well.

- Give Section 2 a more informative title -- the content appears to be
  a section on how O, A and M are used in other SDOs, by way of
  introduction, but the title does not say so.

- In Sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2, no IETF recommendations or
  disambiguation are included.  That's find.  However, Section 2.2.3
  makes recommendations.  The decision to use M to mean "maintenance",
  and what "maintenance" actually means should be moved to Section 3
  (titled "Recommendations" in fact).  Having a recommendation mixed
  in with a survey of other usage is confusing to the reader.

- There should be another section after Section 4, a follow-up to
  Section 2, a discussion section to show how the IETF usage differs
  from that in other SDOs.  Otherwise, what's the point of Section 2?
  It sets the stage by showing the problem ... but then all that
  scenery is abandoned.

- One of the justifications for the recommendation is that OAM
  including maintenance is "horizontal" (on-path) while management is
  "vertical" (element - element mgr).  That's a good distinction.
  However, the "administration" as defined in Section 3 is "vertical".
  Perhaps based on the draft's own justification, OAM should _not_
  include "administration" and just be defined as "operations and
  maintanence"! ... but we don't want that outcome, so I suggest
  reworking the justification to avoid logical inconsistency.

Thanks ... Scott