[Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-pce-pcecp-interarea-reqs-05.txt
Miguel Garcia <Miguel.An.Garcia@nokia.com> Mon, 05 March 2007 12:42 UTC
Return-path: <gen-art-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HOCWL-0001kL-Kk; Mon, 05 Mar 2007 07:42:29 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HOCWL-0001kG-A1 for gen-art@ietf.org; Mon, 05 Mar 2007 07:42:29 -0500
Received: from smtp.nokia.com ([131.228.20.173] helo=mgw-ext14.nokia.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HOCWJ-0004LM-R7 for gen-art@ietf.org; Mon, 05 Mar 2007 07:42:29 -0500
Received: from esebh106.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh106.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.138.213]) by mgw-ext14.nokia.com (Switch-3.2.5/Switch-3.2.5) with ESMTP id l25CgKie005905; Mon, 5 Mar 2007 14:42:24 +0200
Received: from esebh103.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.143.33]) by esebh106.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 5 Mar 2007 14:42:23 +0200
Received: from esebh102.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.183]) by esebh103.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 5 Mar 2007 14:42:23 +0200
Received: from [172.21.58.61] ([172.21.58.61]) by esebh102.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 5 Mar 2007 14:42:23 +0200
Message-ID: <45EC102E.5010505@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 14:42:22 +0200
From: Miguel Garcia <Miguel.An.Garcia@nokia.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (Windows/20060909)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: jeanlouis.leroux@orange-ftgroup.com, rcallon@juniper.net, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Mar 2007 12:42:23.0131 (UTC) FILETIME=[B8BE1EB0:01C75F23]
X-eXpurgate-Category: 1/0
X-eXpurgate-ID: 149371::070305144224-16F23BB0-46B0AE90/0-0/0-1
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 4adaf050708fb13be3316a9eee889caa
Cc: adrian@olddog.co.uk, jpv@cisco.com
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-pce-pcecp-interarea-reqs-05.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
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. Document: draft-ietf-pce-pcecp-interarea-reqs-05.txt Reviewer: Miguel Garcia <miguel.an.garcia@nokia.com> Review Date: 2007-03-05 IESG Telechat date: 08 March 2007 Summary: The document is ready for publication as Informational RFC. Comments: I have only a very subjective comment. In my opinion requirements drafts should make an abstraction of the solution and just note down the requirements. However, while reading this draft, I got the impression that the authors have been thinking quite a lot on the solution space, haven't separated them from the solution, and have written down a few solutions. Just to illustrate a couple of examples. On Section 4.8 the text reads: The request message MUST allow for the inclusion of the address of the originating PCC. This is a solution for a requirement. Unfortunately it is not clear to me what the requirement is. It is probably something related to the "ability of a PCE to apply PCC-specific policies" or something like that, where a solution is "to record the address of the PCC in request messages, so that the PCE can apply a pcc-specific policy". Another example in Section 4.4: Hence the request message SHOULD allow a request for the identification of path segments computed by a PCE, and the response message SHOULD allow identifying the path segments computed by each PCE. Well, just an opinion. /Miguel -- Miguel A. Garcia tel:+358-50-4804586 Nokia Research Center Helsinki, Finland _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
- [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-pce-pcecp-… Miguel Garcia
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-pce-pc… Brian E Carpenter