Re: Gen-ART LC/Telechat review of draft-ietf-pals-ms-pw-protection-03

["Andrew G. Malis" <[e-mail]>]

Peter,

Many thanks for your review. My response is inline:

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 4:07 AM, Peter Yee <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review
> Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for
> the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD
> before posting a new version of the draft.
>
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-pals-ms-pw-protection-03
> Reviewer: Peter Yee
> Review Date: Oct-15-2015
> IETF LC End Date: Oct-15-2015
> IESG Telechat date: Oct-22-2015
>
> Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication as a Standards Track
> RFC, but has nits (and a question) that should be fixed before publication.
> [Ready with nits]
>
> The draft provides two mechanisms that can be used to provide protection to
> static Multi-Segment Pseudowires against failure of switching Provider Edge
> nodes.  I'm not familiar enough with the topic to determine if the
> mechanism
> works as easily as described in the draft, but the concept helpfully does
> not require invention of new protocols, so a determination of suitability
> shouldn't be difficult for MPLS experts to make.
>
> Question: Wouldn't it make sense to provide some explanation in Appendix A
> for why it exists and when it should be used?  Currently it's just offered
> as an alternate approach without real guidance.
>

Appendix A applies to those MPLS-TP networks that are using the PSC
protocol for linear protection. We though that was pretty clear in the
first paragraph of the appendix. I'll see if we can make that more clear.


>
> Major issues: None
>
> Minor issues: None
>
> Nits:
>
> General:
>
> Expand all acronyms on initial use.  Some of them are probably well-known
> in
> the MPLS community, but their expansion wouldn't hurt either.
>

Could you be more specific? On a quick check, the only acronyms I'm seeing
that aren't expanded are MPLS and MPLS-TP, which are included in the
well-known acronym list at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt .


> Specific:
>
> Page 4, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: replace "MS PW" with "MS-PW" to match
> other usage in the document.
>
> Page 4,  2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence: append commas after "which" and
> "PWs".
>
> Page 4, 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence: replace the comma with a semicolon.
>
> Page 8, Section A.2, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: append a comma after
> "link".
>
> Page 8, Section A.2, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence: append "entity" at the
> end
> of the sentence.  As it is, the sentence ends ambiguously in an adjective.
>
> Page 8, Section A.2, 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence: change "a SS-PW" to "an
> SS-PW".
>
>
Thanks for the close read, we'll fix these nits.

Cheers,
Andy