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

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Roni,
Good catches.
Adrian
 
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Roni
Even
Sent: 13 August 2012 22:07
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
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.