Hi Robert, Thank you very much for your constructive comments! We will try to work them out as soon as possible! Best regards, Georgios > -----Original Message----- > From: tsvwg [mailto:tsvwg-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Robert Sparks > Sent: donderdag 21 augustus 2014 22:44 > To: General Area Review Team; ietf@xxxxxxxx; tsvwg@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf- > tsvwg-rsvp-pcn.all@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: [tsvwg] Gen-art LC review: draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn-09 > > 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-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn-09 > Reviewer: Robert Sparks > Review Date: 21 Aug 2014 > IETF LC End Date: 26 Aug 2014 > IESG Telechat date: 2 Oct 2014 > > Summary: Ready (with nits) for publication as Experimental. > > David's shepherd writeup points out that implementation and usage > experience is desired before producing a proposed standard. Are there any > points of concern about how this might behave (or misbehave) in a deployed > network that such experience would inform? If so, it would be useful to call > them out in the document. > > It would be nicer if the document argued why there are no new security > considerations introduced by the new behavior defined in this draft, rather > than tacitly asserting that there aren't any. > > The terminology section has lots of 2119 words in it. It's hard to tell when > these have been copied from some other draft (and this is just restating > them) vs when this draft is introducing a new requirement. > Since a new requirement would likely be missed if it appeared only in a > terminology section, would it be feasible to make sure anything new is well > covered in section 3 or 4 and remove 2119 from these definitions altogether? > > The rest of these comments are minor editorial nits: > > Section 1.2, paragraph 3: "Intserv over Diffserv can operate over a statically > provisioned Diffserv region or RSVP aware." is missing a a word somewhere. > > Section 1.2 paragraph 4: "By using multiple aggregate reservations for the > same PHB allows enforcement of the different preemption priorities within > the aggregation region." doesn't parse. Should the initial "By" > be deleted? > > The definition for PCN-domain is very close to circular. Perhaps some words > can be removed? > >