[Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-bit-07.txt

"Miguel A. Garcia" <Miguel.A.Garcia@ericsson.com> Wed, 23 May 2012 07:22 UTC

Return-Path: <miguel.a.garcia@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BA4821F855B for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 May 2012 00:22:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.649
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.400, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CYZ88J9UXlCQ for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 May 2012 00:22:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw7.ericsson.se (mailgw7.ericsson.se []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A56D21F855A for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 May 2012 00:22:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-b7b55ae000002887-cb-4fbc902a9207
Received: from esessmw0191.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain []) by mailgw7.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 5C.22.10375.A209CBF4; Wed, 23 May 2012 09:22:18 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [] ( by esessmw0191.eemea.ericsson.se ( with Microsoft SMTP Server id; Wed, 23 May 2012 09:22:17 +0200
Message-ID: <4FBC9029.1000305@ericsson.com>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 09:22:17 +0200
From: "Miguel A. Garcia" <Miguel.A.Garcia@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-bit.authors@tools.ietf.org, Andy Malis <amalis@gmail.com>, pwe3-chairs@tools.ietf.org, Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-bit-07.txt
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 07:22:21 -0000

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at

Please resolve these comments along with any other comments you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-bit-07.txt
Reviewer: Miguel Garcia <Miguel.A.Garcia@ericsson.com>
Review Date: 23-May-2012
IESG Telechat date: 24-May-2012

Summary: The document is almost ready for publication as a standards 
track RFC, but has some minor issues that should be fixed.

I reviewed version -06 of this document. At that time I had a few 
comments. Most of them have been successfully addressed. In this review I 
am addressing the leftovers and new issues.

Major issues: none

Minor issues:

- In my previous review, I highlighted that many lowercase 2119-reserved 
words (like "must", "may", etc.) should actually be written in uppercase 
to be really normative. Rather than analyzing each case on a one by one 
basis, the authors have systematically written in uppercase all 
2119-reserved words. The problem is that now some uppercase 2119-reserved 
words don't make sense, and should be reverted to lowercase. Allow me 
some examples:

   * Sections 1 (Introduction) and 2 (Motivation and Scope). Since these 
are descriptive sections in nature, normative text should not be written 
here. If there is a need to write normative text, it should be written 
later in any of the procedures sections.

   * Section 5.2, 1st paragraph, the "MUST" does not really have a 
normative intention as it is currently written:

    One endpoint node of the redundant set of PWs is designated the
    Master and is responsible for selecting which PW both endpoints MUST
    use to forward user traffic.

   * Section 15.2. I understand that this section describes scenarios or 
examples of architectures. Therefore, it does not make sense to write 
normative statements in here. If you need one, it should be written in 
any of the procedures sections. There is a "SHOULD" on the 4th paragraph 
of Section 15.2. The same applies to the last paragraph in Section 15.4 
and last paragraph in Section 15.6.

Nits/editorial comments:

- The abstract has added a new sentence at the end. Unfortunately there 
is a new reference "in RFC 5542 [9]". Abstracts shouldn't include 
references. Just write "... in RFC 5542".

- There is an extra dot at the end of the second paragraph in Section 
6.1. The same happen in the last paragraph of Section 15.3. And yet the 
same in the third paragraph of Section 15.4, and the second paragraph in 

- Section 15.4, second paragraph, the term "Figure" is repeated.

- Section 15.5, the last paragraph starts with some strange indentation.

Miguel A. Garcia
Ericsson Spain