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

"Roni Even" <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com> Mon, 13 August 2012 20:08 UTC

Return-Path: <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
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 45DE621F84FD; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 13:08:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 zXcpVYg3Oihw; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 13:08:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-f44.google.com (mail-wg0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6085221F85ED; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 13:08:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wgbdr13 with SMTP id dr13so2533964wgb.13 for <multiple recipients>; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 13:08:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type :x-mailer:thread-index:content-language; bh=3RJBrl7Qzeo2Mn2R+73CZF6OD5IR6lHkUNtmkjIRI4I=; b=IKh02IfSRQaO/xSRa/hbIPpm6o7g0GiM10HJ6b/W+j67VAEXXj9BKtFUZHWkOCRbQH k/Oqm0UHzM7G7rQwuhL8wTjqwx0bnUMBhOlAVue/YGObMIwWPELKzYcBJe47MlgI2wMC PIHNABdlqRsuCZaP/Gj1b/nPhS7fRc3iuhJNiG9Ikw8YJbCOn1upm1ExBlX/b/cCumtR /8jPSxCQ5E8x7i9lI+6B+Rlfbvlt90QEIyRF4zvMbgvBE9HjY2uI3b1AGr7oVECHlLSN lSe5FCwaSXben2B00HB/JNfTZJMNIgpTC3CZSJznolS6YnXP5p9D66I27tlFJE7OjIyr Op4w==
Received: by 10.180.82.39 with SMTP id f7mr21221132wiy.2.1344888517387; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 13:08:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from RoniE (bzq-79-182-232-234.red.bezeqint.net. [79.182.232.234]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k2sm26493072wiz.7.2012.08.13.13.08.34 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 13 Aug 2012 13:08:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Roni Even" <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
To: <draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc5787bis.all@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc5787bis-05
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 23:07:24 +0200
Message-ID: <002101cd7997$a5204330$ef60c990$@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0022_01CD79A8.68A9FD90"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-index: Ac15l6K82vd14GSLS+SGruU3C7QWJA==
Content-language: en-us
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
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: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 20:08:40 -0000

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.