Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode-16.txt

[Leeyoung <[e-mail]>]

Hi Francis,

Thanks for your review and good comments. 

Please see inline for my comment. Let me know if the draft can move on or not after your review. 

Regards,
Young

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 10:13 AM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: review of draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode-16.txt

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-general-constraint-encode-16.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20150107
IETF LC End Date: 20150117
IESG Telechat date: unknown

Summary: Ready

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments:
 - you use a strange indentation for sub sections... Perhaps it is from
  the tempate?? Anyway it will be handled/fixed by the RFC Editor.

YOOUNG>> OK. Will fix during the RFC Editor review. 

 - 2 page 6:
  1 -- the device is switched(e.g., ROADM/OXC)
                             ^ add a space here

YOUNG>> Ok. 

 - 2.2 page 7: OxFF -> 0xff (letter O -> digit 0)

YOUNG>> OK. 

 - 2.2 page 8: RestrictType -> RestrictionType

YOUNG>> OK. 

 - 2.3 page 11:
  0x01(Inclusive Range)
      ^ add a space here

YOUNG>> OK. 

 - 2.3 page 11: I can't understand the unnumbered in this statement:
  "... Note
   that the Action field can be set to 0x01 (Inclusive Range) only when
   unnumbered link identifier is used."

YOUNG>> I think the reason for this restriction is it would be hard to retrieve the numbered interfaces from the range format (unless they are contiguously numbered). On the other hand, the unnumbered interfaces (e.g., s/0, s/1, etc.) can be extracted from the range. For example, if the begin range were s/0 and the end range were s/4, the link set would be:= {s/0, s/1, s/2, s/3, s/4}. 

 - 2.6.1 page 16: I suggest: Num Labels -> Num Labels = N
  in the schema

YOUNG>> OK.

 - 2.6.2 page 16: I suggest: Num Labels -> Num Labels = 2
  in the schema

YOUNG>> OK. 

 - 2.6.3 page 17: missing parenthesis:
  "positions (Num Labels) and beyond SHOULD be set to zero"
                                    ^ add ) here?

YOUNG>> Yes. 

 - 6 page 28: I don't fully understand why RFC 5307 is an
  informative reference and RFC 4203 (same with OSPF in place
  of IS-IS) is a normative one.

YOUNG>> Yes, both should be, I think, normative references. 

 - pages 31 and 32: perhaps another side-effect from the template:
  inusual (for a draft) IP statement & co...

YOUNG>> Sorry, that is not needed. Will be delelted. 

Thanks

[e-mail]