I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-rsvp-te-call-01.txt. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html>. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be fixed before publication. Comments: Substantial: ============ * General comment about backward compatibility I think legacy transit nodes resetting the Call ID to zero on transmission is a major issue that needs to be addressed more visibly in the draft. * Section 6.1 The following sentence needs to be tightened. The text "Note that a Call MAY NOT be imposed ..." needs to be changed to "Note that a Call MUST NOT be imposed ..." since it is a prohibition to do so. Semi-substantial: ================= * Section 5.1 I did not understand what this sentence means. Does it mean the notify message does not have to follow the path of LSPs or it must not follow the path of LSPs? Adding some clarifying text on why it is so, may be a good idea. "The Notify message is a targeted message and does not follow the path of LSPs through the network." * Section 6.5 Call Collision For the Call ID Contention error case, I do not see why we need to check the remote source address, instead of always returning an error. * Section 6.6.5 "If a teardown request Notify message is received for an unknown Call ID, it is, nevertheless, responded to in the affirmative." Why not return a Call Management/Unknown Call ID error instead? * IANA considerations If there are existing implementations it would be nice to suggest values for the RSVP objects and error codes to the IANA Minor: ====== * The following text is repeated in both the abstract and the introduction. One of them can be removed. "A Call does not provide the actual connectivity for transmitting user traffic, but only builds a relationship by which subsequent Connections may be made. In GMPLS such Connections are known as Label Switched Paths (LSPs)." * Section 4.3.1 Suggest replacing "In this case the ingress..." with "In the case where the ingress..." since "this case" has not been defined. Editorial: ========== There is a reference to RFC2747 in the references section but it is not referenced anywhere in the draft. I would suggest removing the reference _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf