From: "Aissaoui, Mustapha (Mustapha)" <mustapha.aissaoui@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: "Miguel A. Garcia" <Miguel.A.Garcia@ericsson.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:21:55 -0500
Thread-Topic: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-bit-07.txt
Thread-Index: Ac04tNVtXAkzBuQLRKy+X09n0lIVbwby0yMA
Message-ID: <5DF53972F7E9134782DCE51624466FE50BD74A84F3@USNAVSXCHMBSC2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <4FBC9029.1000305@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <4FBC9029.1000305@ericsson.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-bit.authors@tools.ietf.org"
 <draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-bit.authors@tools.ietf.org>,
 General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, Andy Malis <amalis@gmail.com>,
 "pwe3-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <pwe3-chairs@tools.ietf.org>,
 Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-bit-07.txt
Precedence: list

Hi Miguel,
Thank you again for the second review of this draft. All your comments are =
accepted and will be included in the next version.

Regards,
Mustapha.=20

-----Original Message-----
From: Miguel A. Garcia [mailto:Miguel.A.Garcia@ericsson.com]=20
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 3:22 AM
To: draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-bit.authors@tools.ietf.org; Andy Malis; pwe3=
-chairs@tools.ietf.org; Stewart Bryant
Cc: General Area Review Team
Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-bit-07.txt

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 <http://wiki.=
tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>

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 address=
ing the leftovers and new issues.

Major issues: none

Minor issues:

- In my previous review, I highlighted that many lowercase 2119-reserved wo=
rds (like "must", "may", etc.) should actually be written in uppercase to b=
e really normative. Rather than analyzing each case on a one by one basis, =
the authors have systematically written in uppercase all 2119-reserved word=
s. The problem is that now some uppercase 2119-reserved words don't make se=
nse, and should be reverted to lowercase. Allow me some examples:

   * Sections 1 (Introduction) and 2 (Motivation and Scope). Since these ar=
e 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 normativ=
e 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 ex=
amples of architectures. Therefore, it does not make sense to write normati=
ve 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 paragra=
ph 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 15.6.

- Section 15.4, second paragraph, the term "Figure" is repeated.

- Section 15.5, the last paragraph starts with some strange indentation.

/Miguel
--
Miguel A. Garcia
+34-91-339-3608
Ericsson Spain