Re: [Teas] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-scaling-rec-07: (with COMMENT)

Ben, Hi!

Thanks for the review. We just posted a new revision (-07) to address the
Gen-Art review comments. Please go through the new diffs (
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-scaling-rec-07)
and let us know if the new narrative addresses all of your concerns.

Regards,
-Pavan

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 9:17 PM, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> wrote:

> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-scaling-rec-07: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-scaling-rec/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> [Note: The authors revised this draft between the time I reviewed it and
> transcribed my notes. This is a review of version 06. I will not have time
> to
> re-review 07 prior to the telechat to see if my comments still apply.]
>
> Substantive:
>
> - General: I agree with the "major issues" comments from Elwyn's Gen-ART
> review.
>
> - General: There's a fair amount of 2119 language in this draft that
> refers to
> options in prior RFCs. It's not clear which of those are new normative
> requirements vs restatements of existing requirements. In the former case,
> this
> draft would need to update those respective RFCs. In the latter case, this
> draft should use descriptive language rather than 2119 keywords (unless in
> the
> form of direct quotes.)
>
> -1, last paragraph: "In order to reap maximum scaling benefits, it is
>    strongly RECOMMENDED that implementations support both the
>    techniques."
>
> That statement seems to require updating ... something. Maybe 3209 or 2961?
>
> -2.1.3, 2nd paragraph: Does this update RFC 2961?  Or if not, is the
> normative
> language appropriate here?
>
> -2.2, bullet list: Are these new normative requirements or restatements of
> existing ones?
>
> -6: "This document does not introduce new security issues."
> Please document the reasoning behind that statement.
>
> Editorial:
>
> -2.1, section title: Why the quotes?
>
> -2.2, first bullet: Section 1 already normatively states these. This text
> effectively says "MUST follow the MUSTs...". (Note that this pattern
> recurs in
> several places.)
>
> -2.3, first paragraph: "The set of recommendations discussed in this
> section..."
> As written, many of those are requirements rather than recommendations.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Teas mailing list
> Teas@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>