IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ccamp-attribute-bnf-02

"Vijay K. Gurbani" <vkg@bell-labs.com> Mon, 17 October 2011 21:15 UTC

Return-Path: <vkg@bell-labs.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E98FA21F8C37 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 14:15:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.413
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.413 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.186, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oUIDsRIFw74q for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 14:15:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ihemail3.lucent.com (ihemail3.lucent.com [135.245.0.37]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DAD821F8C34 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 14:15:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usnavsmail1.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsmail1.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.9]) by ihemail3.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id p9HLFe1R008562 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 17 Oct 2011 16:15:40 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from umail.lucent.com (umail-ce2.ndc.lucent.com [135.3.40.63]) by usnavsmail1.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id p9HLFdWN011513 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 17 Oct 2011 16:15:39 -0500
Received: from shoonya.ih.lucent.com (shoonya.ih.lucent.com [135.185.238.235]) by umail.lucent.com (8.13.8/TPES) with ESMTP id p9HLFcAh003352; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 16:15:38 -0500 (CDT)
Message-ID: <4E9C9BA2.1040801@bell-labs.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 16:18:26 -0500
From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <vkg@bell-labs.com>
Organization: Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:7.0) Gecko/20110927 Thunderbird/7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: draft-ietf-ccamp-attribute-bnf@tools.ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.37
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 135.3.39.9
Cc: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, lberger@labn.net, dbrungard@att.com
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ccamp-attribute-bnf-02
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: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 21:15:56 -0000

I am the assigned 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 Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-ccamp-attribute-bnf-02
Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani
Review Date: Oct-17-2011
IETF LC End Date: Not known.
IESG Telechat date: Oct-20-2011

Summary: This draft is ready as a Proposed Standard.

Major issues: 0
Minor issues: 2
Nits/editorial comments: 3

Minor:
* S2: In the phrase, "... implementations must be capable ..."
  is this a normative MUST?

* S3: In the phrase, "... implementations must be capable ..."
  is this a normative MUST?

Nits:
* Abstract: s/how LSP attribute are/how LSP attributes are/

* S1: "Two LSP Attributes related objects ..." --- This reads
  funny.  Did you mean "Two LSP Attribute related objects..."?
  This oversight, if indeed it is an oversight, is repeated else-
  where in the document as well.

  At other places (e.g., S3.2.1), you simply use "LSP Attribute object".
  So I am not sure which one is correct.

* S2.1: s/LSP attributed related objects/LSP attributes related objects/
   or maybe "LSP Attribute related objects"?

- vijay
-- 
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60566 (USA)
Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / vijay.gurbani@alcatel-lucent.com
Web:   http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email