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

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Tue, 17 July 2012 10:49 UTC

Return-Path: <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F22721F86C5 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 03:49:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.973
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.973 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.374, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zG2RXM9qk4Zn for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 03:49:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from waldorf.isode.com (cl-125.lon-03.gb.sixxs.net [IPv6:2a00:14f0:e000:7c::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 534FD21F8669 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 03:49:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1342522266; d=isode.com; s=selector; i=@isode.com; bh=mtVCyqXyqWzXIdE0biNRFK28j/snOBS7Skh3rdYhIm0=; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description; b=uapKbloAAblNlTVmYkhd0vwGv7xn5e64f3uAedwx3MPY3uwH2l6o5r1ZSySoiD9RJw8+B2 aJ+/b1WX/sgXXjHvdCkxLZXHmbJ4IoOcd4TI34dEFhU1BSNhns2FLpllBIBqAQMmWSikVo FnxZlANoYB7jz6IkijlO9fEpG212sjA=;
Received: from [172.16.1.29] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by waldorf.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPSA id <UAVDmQAkRJWi@waldorf.isode.com>; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 11:51:06 +0100
X-SMTP-Protocol-Errors: PIPELINING
Message-ID: <50054379.2010205@isode.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 11:50:33 +0100
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120614 Thunderbird/13.0.1
To: draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements.all@tools.ietf.org
References: <4FF2E47C.80104@isode.com>
In-Reply-To: <4FF2E47C.80104@isode.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-07
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 10:49:46 -0000

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.)