Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-07

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

My favourite typo was fixed in -08 ;-), my comment on REQ 10 was replied 
to and I am still undecided on the document status (IESG should 
decided), so this document is Ok for publication as far as I am concerned.

On 03/07/2012 13:24, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> 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-behave-lsn-requirements-07
> Reviewer: Alexey Melnikov
> Review Date: 3-July-2012
> IETF LC End Date: 10-July-2012
> IESG Telechat date: Pending
>
> Summary: The document is ready for publication as a BCP.
>
> Major Issues: None
>
> Minor Issues: None
>
> Nits/editorial comments:
>
> I found it is to be odd to have a requirements document as a BCP, but 
> I am sure
> you can sort the right status out with IESG.
>
> I found the justification for REQ-6 hard to read/understand. Why does 
> access to
> servers being on the internal network need to go through CGN at all?
>
>
> REQ-10:
>
> Justification:  It is anticipated that CGNs will be primarily
>       deployed in ISP networks where the need for management is
>       critical.  This requirement is at the SHOULD level to acocunt for
>
> typo: account
>
>       the fact that some CGN operators may not need management
>       functionality.
>
> Oh really :-)? (Sorry, couldn't resist.)