[CCAMP] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-behavior-negotiation-09

Julien Meuric <julien.meuric@orange.com> Fri, 18 January 2013 17:00 UTC

Return-Path: <julien.meuric@orange.com>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D425121F886C; Fri, 18 Jan 2013 09:00:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id she4GI-90vr8; Fri, 18 Jan 2013 09:00:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com [195.101.245.16]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F325021F8863; Fri, 18 Jan 2013 09:00:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 990741074002; Fri, 18 Jan 2013 18:05:15 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.192.128.47]) by p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90CDC1074001; Fri, 18 Jan 2013 18:05:15 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ftrdmel10.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.192.128.44]) by ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 18 Jan 2013 18:00:30 +0100
Received: from [10.193.71.218] ([10.193.71.218]) by ftrdmel10.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 18 Jan 2013 18:00:29 +0100
Message-ID: <50F97FAC.3010903@orange.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 18:00:28 +0100
From: Julien Meuric <julien.meuric@orange.com>
Organization: France Telecom
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130106 Thunderbird/17.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org" <rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Jan 2013 17:00:29.0878 (UTC) FILETIME=[520BAD60:01CDF59D]
Cc: draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-behavior-negotiation.all@tools.ietf.org, "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Subject: [CCAMP] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-behavior-negotiation-09
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
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: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 17:00:31 -0000

Hello,

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. 
The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related 
drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review. The purpose 
of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more 
information about the Routing Directorate, please see 
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/routing.html

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it 
would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF 
Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through 
discussion or by updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-behavior-negotiation-09
Reviewer: Julien Meuric
Review Date: 18 January 2013
IETF LC End Date: 21 January 2013
Intended Status: Standards Track

*Summary:*
This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that 
should be considered prior to it.

*Comments:*
This document is clearly written and easy to understand. The defined 
mechanism is simple and well specified.

*Nits:*
Abstract
-Instead of "GMPLS networks", "GMPLS-controlled networks" reads more 
accurate to me. It would also align on the phrase used in the 
introduction. The resulting "Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching 
(GMPLS)-controlled networks" may be checked with the RFC Editor.

Introduction
- s/LMP node/LMP-capable node/
- s/functions defined in that document/functions specified in that very 
document/  [repetition of "defined"]
- s/the message types from/the types from/  [repetition of "message"]

Section 2.2
- s/MAY include, HelloConfig/MAY include HelloConfig/

Section 3.1
- s/number of MBZ bits field/number of bits in MBZ field/

Section 4
- s/[RFC4202] defined/[RFC4202]-defined/

Section 9.2
- I tend to think that [LMP TEST] should now reference 
draft-cecczhang-ccamp-gmpls-g709v3-lmp


Enjoy the week-end,

Julien