[Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-06

Brian Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 12 June 2018 03:30 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietf.org
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03033130F1B; Mon, 11 Jun 2018 20:30:51 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Brian Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
To: <gen-art@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw.all@ietf.org, pals@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.81.2
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <152877425096.2652.654313340478370473@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 20:30:51 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/kPUUppK4YyvP4L3OaLZKht-XEYc>
Subject: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-06
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 12 Jun 2018 03:30:51 -0000

Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review result: Ready with Nits

Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-06

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

Document: draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-06.txt
Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review Date: 2018-06-12
IETF LC End Date: 2018-06-15
IESG Telechat date: 2018-06-21

Summary: Ready with nits


This (with RFC4928) is a wonderful example of why layer violations are a Bad Thing.


> 1.  Introduction
>   This document recommends the use of the Ethernet pseudowire control
>   word in all but exceptional circumstances.

That's wrong, it *mandates* this usage with a MUST (first paragraph of section 4).

> 3.  Background
>   A recent posting on the Nanog email list has highlighted this
>   problem:
>   https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2016-December/089395.html

No, it's no longer recent. How about:

   For example, a posting on the Nanog email list highlighted this

> 7.  Operational Considerations
>   CW presence on the PW is controlled by the configuration and may be
>   subject to default operational mode of not being enabled. 

That sentence is hard to parse. Try this:

   A configuration switch might determine whether the CW is used on the PW. 
   The default configuration might be to disable use of the CW.