RE: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc5787bis-05

["Adrian Farrel" <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Roni,

Good catches.

Adrian

 

From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roni Even
Sent: 13 August 2012 22:07
To: draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc5787bis.all@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: gen-art@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc5787bis-05

 

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 resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive.

 

Document: draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc5787bis-05.

Reviewer: Roni Even

Review Date:2012–8–12

IETF LC End Date: 2012–8–17

IESG Telechat date:

 

Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a standard track RFC.

 

 

Major issues:

 

Minor issues:

In section 6.1 “ If specified more than once, instances preceding the first will be ignored and condition SHOULD be logged for possible action by the network operator.”  I am not sure what is meant by preceding the first.

 

 

Nits/editorial comments:

 

1. The following note appears in section 10.1, 10.2 and 10.3. “Note that the same values for the Inter-RA Export Upward sub-TLV and the Inter-RA Export Downward Sub-TLV MUST be used when they appear in the Link TLV, Node Attribute TLV, and Router Address TLV.” – why not have it in section 10 before section 10.1.
2. I saw in appendix  B that one of the changes from RFC 5787 was to clarify the terminology before defining extensions, I would have found it easier to read if the ASON hierarchy and the relation to OSPF in section 2 were presented in figures. This was more an issue to me as a reader not familiar with the terminology and I would like to think that the more familiar reader will not have problem.