RE: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc5787bis-05

"Adrian Farrel" <> Tue, 14 August 2012 05:05 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F294521F8648; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 22:05:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.511
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.087, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ms+wK5KcfPnl; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 22:05:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A2C621F8621; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 22:05:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (localhost.localdomain []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q7E54wrC016653; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 06:04:58 +0100
Received: from 950129200 ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q7E54q1X016625 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 14 Aug 2012 06:04:56 +0100
From: "Adrian Farrel" <>
To: "'Roni Even'" <>, <>
References: <002101cd7997$a5204330$ef60c990$>
In-Reply-To: <002101cd7997$a5204330$ef60c990$>
Subject: RE: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc5787bis-05
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 06:04:49 +0100
Message-ID: <09c201cd79da$570f3be0$052db3a0$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_09C3_01CD79E2.B8D837C0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQGVMjaGM7HZ8bSlogDWIwhoGoR3V5fJT4Qg
Content-Language: en-gb
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 05:05:04 -0000

Thanks Roni,
Good catches.
From: [] On Behalf Of Roni
Sent: 13 August 2012 22:07
Subject: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc5787bis-05
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART,
please see the FAQ at <>.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may
Document: draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc5787bis-05.
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2012-8-12
IETF LC End Date: 2012-8-17
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a standard track RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
In section 6.1 " If specified more than once, instances preceding the first will
be ignored and condition SHOULD be logged for possible action by the network
operator."  I am not sure what is meant by preceding the first.
Nits/editorial comments:
1.	The following note appears in section 10.1, 10.2 and 10.3. "Note that
the same values for the Inter-RA Export Upward sub-TLV and the Inter-RA Export
Downward Sub-TLV MUST be used when they appear in the Link TLV, Node Attribute
TLV, and Router Address TLV." - why not have it in section 10 before section
2.	I saw in appendix  B that one of the changes from RFC 5787 was to
clarify the terminology before defining extensions, I would have found it easier
to read if the ASON hierarchy and the relation to OSPF in section 2 were
presented in figures. This was more an issue to me as a reader not familiar with
the terminology and I would like to think that the more familiar reader will not
have problem.