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

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Tue, 14 August 2012 05:05 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F294521F8648; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 22:05:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.511
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ms+wK5KcfPnl; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 22:05:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (asmtp3.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.159]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A2C621F8621; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 22:05:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q7E54wrC016653; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 06:04:58 +0100
Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (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" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: "'Roni Even'" <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>, <draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc5787bis.all@tools.ietf.org>
References: <002101cd7997$a5204330$ef60c990$@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <002101cd7997$a5204330$ef60c990$@gmail.com>
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$052db3a0$@olddog.co.uk>
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
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 05:05:04 -0000

Thanks Roni,
Good catches.
Adrian
 
From: ietf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Roni
Even
Sent: 13 August 2012 22:07
To: draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc5787bis.all@tools.ietf.org
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
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 <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-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
10.1.
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.