[Gen-art] Gen ART review of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec-03.txt
Black_David@emc.com Wed, 09 August 2006 16:00 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GAqTz-0006iI-BK; Wed, 09 Aug 2006 12:00:35 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GAqTy-0006go-75 for gen-art@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Aug 2006 12:00:34 -0400
Received: from mexforward.lss.emc.com ([128.222.32.20]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GAqTw-0006v4-UH for gen-art@ietf.org; Wed, 09 Aug 2006 12:00:34 -0400
Received: from mailhub.lss.emc.com (nagas.lss.emc.com [10.254.144.11]) by mexforward.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.1.7/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id k79G0VtW018846; Wed, 9 Aug 2006 12:00:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mxic2.corp.emc.com (mxic2.corp.emc.com [128.221.12.9]) by mailhub.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.1.8/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id k79G0DmE006583; Wed, 9 Aug 2006 12:00:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by mxic2.corp.emc.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <QCB9K3RB>; Wed, 9 Aug 2006 12:00:12 -0400
Message-ID: <F222151D3323874393F83102D614E05502B67141@CORPUSMX20A.corp.emc.com>
From: Black_David@emc.com
To: gen-art@ietf.org, lberger@movaz.com
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 11:59:56 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain
X-PMX-Version: 4.7.1.128075, Antispam-Engine: 2.4.0.264935, Antispam-Data: 2006.8.1.75432
X-PerlMx-Spam: Gauge=, SPAM=0%, Reason='EMC_BODY_1+ -3, EMC_FROM_0+ -2, NO_REAL_NAME 0, __C230066_P5 0, __CP_URI_IN_BODY 0, __CT 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __HAS_X_MAILER 0, __IMS_MSGID 0, __IMS_MUA 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __SANE_MSGID 0, __STOCK_CRUFT 0'
X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: c1c65599517f9ac32519d043c37c5336
Cc: rcallon@juniper.net, adrian@olddog.co.uk, Black_David@emc.com, dbrungard@att.com
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen ART review of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec-03.txt
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/gen-art>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: gen-art-bounces@ietf.org
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
- [Gen-art] Gen ART review of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpl… Black_David
- [Gen-art] FW: Gen ART review of draft-ietf-ccamp-… Black_David
- [Gen-art] Re: Gen ART review of draft-ietf-ccamp-… Adrian Farrel
- [Gen-art] Re: FW: Gen ART review of draft-ietf-cc… Ross Callon
- [Gen-art] Re: Gen ART review of draft-ietf-ccamp-… Lou Berger
- [Gen-art] Re: Gen ART review of draft-ietf-ccamp-… Lou Berger
- [Gen-art] Re: Gen ART review of draft-ietf-ccamp-… Adrian Farrel
- [Gen-art] RE: Gen ART review of draft-ietf-ccamp-… Black_David
- [Gen-art] RE: Gen ART review of draft-ietf-ccamp-… Lou Berger