[CCAMP] comments/questions on draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-attribute-ro

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

Hi,
	At the last meeting it was mentioned that folks should take a look at
draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-attribute-ro in anticipation of an upcoming LC.
Consequently, I took a re look at the document and have some
comments/questions (for authors/contributors/WG/...):

- You have a couple of editorial notes in the document, do these still
apply or should they be dropped.

- There are cases where you use 2114 language in lower case (e.g.,
section 3.1).  As I've mentioned before on the list, such usage, even
when correct, often leads to unneeded discussion during IESG review, I'd
suggest avoiding lower cases usage wherever possible.  That said, I
think you have some cases where upper case was intended.

- In section 3.1, 3.3 you are giving the definition for fields (length
and type) that are defined in 3209.  You should just point to that
definition rather than seeming to provide the authoritative definition
in this document.

- In section 3.2, you are similarly doing this for the Attribute TLV
defined in section 3 of 5420.  Why not just include the reference and
the (re)definition?

- Section 4. Isn't recording applicable to required  attributes as well?
I.e.,why no R bit recording in section 4.1?

- I think it would be good to have a compatibility section / discussion
which should at least discuss how to deal with the now two ways to
encode / record attribute flags. -- This document could replace
(deprecate) the old way, but this document would then need to be an
update to 5420...

- The IANA section needs to be updated with the proper format.  See
RFC5226.  draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-07 is good example (but
don't include values and use the non-xml version of the registry links.)

- Section 6 won't make it through the IESG.  Again
draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-07 is good example of recent
language produced by the WG, and is a fine starting point.

I think that's it.

Lou