[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