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

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Thu, 06 November 2014 08:15 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DF021A1A12 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Nov 2014 00:15:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KbVSrMyYgGyG for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Nov 2014 00:15:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (asmtp3.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.159]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E1BF1A1A67 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Nov 2014 00:15:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id sA68FH3l002307; Thu, 6 Nov 2014 08:15:17 GMT
Received: from 950129200 (ip-64-134-230-10.public.wayport.net [64.134.230.10]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id sA68EmD6001782 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 6 Nov 2014 08:15:16 GMT
From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: <draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info.all@tools.ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 08:14:47 -0000
Message-ID: <006001cff999$cbb939a0$632bace0$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: Ac/5MGMsQKAsEoKTR4GemhQ+XYEt+w==
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1576-7.5.0.1018-21078.005
X-TM-AS-Result: No--9.445-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--9.445-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: 5NsVLbFZiRidLySUmQFkksqXjImgj58bI6PHNDZGGCLDOS0FhcAXSnAX R/gLaDwapV4Ixwah5Pq5lJgO2YMTupehWb8K3L/Nl1zsjZ1/6awt0t+aIVLt+6j5v7I4/SgYynA ZOiRypkJacfYY1fbIowFSFLguAk63fmIXcnp2U89CZSbGz8XXg4Dhw2T0rpjGE/Wk1GoXIuosgd kHScxUMaje1ZEL4eF8NB29Ml8pA5/blFIFKKBbULGj3LN0+Ey9E7JInT4wddpaW2Ktn+I8/teRc Q9JcFh8ycjz+bqGtKmFU4GnVCdVKOZHRjmtPnwOe7MO8jvmPSzF0gM0Cl6pK5soi2XrUn/JyeMt MD9QOgDGlDvsLUDW2o6HM5rqDwqtilJuRQcMWNHZVhS7oqWM4OOT+9ySdtKQ+inueM2TWzSYTGF PYuIyow==
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/lHptbtb-NxDTiadsnVprfFgHNNE
Cc: ccamp@ietf.org
Subject: [CCAMP] AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2014 08:15:24 -0000

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.

---

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

---

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

---

Page 10

   <ResourceAccessibility ::= <PoolInputMatrix> <PoolOutputMatrix>

is missing a '>'

---

In 5.3.1 please

s/draft/document/  twice.

---

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.

---

Should 6.5 also have a reference to ISIS TE?

---

Page 15

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

---

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?

---

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

---

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

---

s/Author's Addresses/Authors' Addresses/