[Gen-art] Re: Gen ART review of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec-03.txt

Adrian,
         Thanks for the redirect.

David,
         Much thanks for the comments.  I'll review this tomorrow and 
follow up if I have any questions/issues to discuss.  (If not, I'll 
just update and submit the draft.)

Lou

At 01:04 PM 8/9/2006, Adrian Farrel wrote:

>Forwarding to Lou's new email address.
>
>Adrian
>----- Original Message ----- From: <Black_David@emc.com>
>To: <gen-art@ietf.org>; <lberger@movaz.com>
>Cc: <rcallon@juniper.net>; <adrian@olddog.co.uk>; 
><dbrungard@att.com>; <Black_David@emc.com>
>Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 4:59 PM
>Subject: Gen ART review of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec-03.txt
>
>
>>Lou,
>>
>>I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for
>>draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec-03.txt .
>>
>>For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
>><http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html>.
>>
>>Please resolve these comments along with any other
>>Last Call comments you may receive.
>>
>>This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits
>>that should be fixed before publication.
>>
>>The draft is generally well-written and to the point.  All
>>of these comments are minor.
>>- Section 3.1.  Say why the two-leading-one-bits form is used
>>for ALARM_SPEC objects in this section in addition to
>>Section 3.1.4.  It would be ok to move the text from Section
>>3.1.4 up into Section 3.1.  Also, if there's a good explanation
>>for why C-Type 1 and 2 are Reserved, that explanation should
>>be added.
>>- Section 3.1.1 should give guidance for and examples of appropriate
>>use of Severity values.
>>- Section 3.1.2 has a number of SHOULDs and SHOULD NOTs.  There needs
>>to be an explanation of why these strong recommendations are
>>being made (which would imply consequences of not following
>>the recommendations) and/or a description of what goes wrong
>>when they're not followed.  The overall explanation appears
>>to be a desire to supply enough basic information to allow
>>the recipient to understand the alarm (this info can be quite
>>important as the recipient may be dealing with a crisis of
>>which the alarm is a part).  The "MAY" for the ref
>>count TLV needs to be explained  (why would it be used?).
>>- Section 3.1.2 on p10 discusses adding alarm objects to the
>>"state of LSPs".  The quoted phrase needs to be defined -
>>I think the addition is to the LSP state communicated by
>>RSVP Path and Resv messages.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>--David
>>----------------------------------------------------
>>David L. Black, Senior Technologist
>>EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
>>+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
>>black_david@emc.com        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
>>----------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art