Re: [CCAMP] AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info

[Leeyoung <[e-mail]>]

Hi Adrian,

Thank you so much for providing your comments and speeding up the process. Yes, all your comments will be incorporated in the revision after the end of IETF last call. Please see inline for my response to your comment. 


Regards,
Young

-----Original Message-----
From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 2:15 AM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info

Hi,

I've done my usual AD review of this draft as part of the publication request process. The purpose of my review is to catch issues that would otherwise get in the way during IETF last call and IESG review.

This document is quite readable: thank you. I have no comments that need to delay the document, and I will start the IETF last call.

However, I do have a number of small issues that are essentially editorial. I've attached these below and will re-send them as part of the IETF last call so that you can collect them and fix them in any revision after the end of IETF last call.

Thanks for the work,
Adrian

====

It would be nice to do a little post-processing to your text file to arrange the RBNF to make it slightly easier to read. Of course, the semantics would not change, so this is not essential: just nice.

YOUNG>> Yes, agree. Done globally. 
---

Figures 1 and 2 would benefit from a statement that "Rb" is a resource block.

YOUNG>> OK. A note added.  
---

Figure 2 has a couple of stray '+' signs on the left-hand edge of the output matrix box.

YOUNG>> Good catch. Corrected. 

---

Page 10

   <ResourceAccessibility ::= <PoolInputMatrix> <PoolOutputMatrix>

is missing a '>'


YOUNG> Another good catch. Corrected. 
---

In 5.3.1 please

s/draft/document/  twice.

YOUNG>> OK. Corrected (actually in 5.3.2). 
---

I wonder whether you want to add a reference to RFC7308 in Section 6.1.
I don't think this makes any difference to the validity of the section, but it may be helpful when data models based on this information model are built.

YOUNG>> I agree. Added as normative reference. 

---

Should 6.5 also have a reference to ISIS TE?

YOUNG>> OK. RFC3784 added as normative reference.

---

Page 15

You need to separate the RBNF from the end of the first paragraph

YOUNG>> Done. 

---

The question for section 8 is: are there any security elements that need to be in your information model? Security qualities of links and nodes? Security capabilities of links and nodes?

YOUNG>> I am not sure what you are referring to. Can you elaborate some examples of security qualities/capabilities? Since this is informational draft, perhaps the corresponding encode draft may be a good place for this. 

---

Section 3 has a reference to [G.7715] but this is not shown in the references section. 

YOUNG>> Added. 

---

[G.707], [G.709], and [G.Sup39] are listed as references, but not used.

YOUNG>> Deleted. 

---

s/Author's Addresses/Authors' Addresses/

YOUNG>> Corrected.