I reviewed the document "P2P Overlay Diagnostics" (draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-19.txt) 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.




 




Intended status: Standards Track




Updates: 6940 (if approved) 




Current IESG state: In Last Call (ends 2015-12-14)




IANA Review State: IANA - Not OK (see for IANA comments at:



https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics/history/

)




 




Summary: The document describes mechanisms for P2P overlay diagnostics.  It defines extensions to the RELOAD P2PSIP base protocol to collect diagnostic information, and details the protocol specifications for these extensions.   




 




Comments:




- The document is not easy to read and the clarity could be improved.




- It is common practice and rule to mention in the document abstract the RFC which is going to be updated.




- There are many occurrences of the word “should”. Are these meant to be normative language and “SHOULD”?




 




- There are different terms used in the first few sections, which are not introduced properly. One substantial term the reader is surprised with is "diagnostic kind type".




- I believe the basic terms used in the document should be defined in a Terminology section if not defined in RFC 6940. The Terminology section should mention that the terminology from RFC 6940 is used.




- The term "Kind" has been defined in RFC 6940. If the term "kind" is to be used as defined in RFC 6940 it should be used with a capital "K".




- There are different very long sentences and a few 5-to-6-part-substantives which don't contribute to readability (e.g.: “single, general P2PSIP overlay diagnostic framework”).




- Concerning: "The second is a new method and response, PathTrack,"




I would like to suggest to delete "and response" or call it "a new request/response method".




 




The idnits tool returns one error and numerous warnings which need to be fixed (13 warnings, 2 comment and 1 error).




See 


http://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=""> 




 




Mehmet