[CCAMP] Comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-07

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

Authors,
	I think we still have some unresolved comments from May:

>> - you use "should not" in lower case in a few spots in this section.
>>  While I think your usage *is* correct, my experience is that someone
>>  (probably in the IESG) will tell you that these need to be in upper
>>  case at some point.  Of course, they'll be wrong, and this will have
>>  to be explained.  I suggest avoiding 2119 language in lower case where
>>  easily avoided.  How about s/should not be/is not to be

The above comment also applies to "must".

Your current of 2119 language is a bit inconsistent. I think you should
review current uses of 2119 language and ensure that such usage is
limited to (protocol) mechanisms, behavior and interoperability.  If
doesn't the language is most likely informative in nature and should
avoid 2119 conformance language.

>> - The section is missing handling of RRO to big. Perhaps add it at ~line
>>  330.
> 

A few of new comments:

- The current text of section 4.1 could be read as only one ID may be
present in the SO.  you should explain under what conditions multiple
IDs are to be added.

-  Please provide a reference for "Confidential Path message. Segment (CPS)"

- (should have caught this one before, i.e., is in old text) In Section
5.1 it looks like you are applying policy on both Path and Resv
processing ("When a node receives a Resv message ... if local policy
determines ...). Given the "SRLG Recording Rejected" PathErr required
earlier in the section, is this really needed?  Are you assuming
separate upstream/downstream policies?  (Which would seem to be
overkill.) Covering a policy change race condition, something else? I
suspect the policy processing text on resv isn't needed.

Thanks,
Lou