Re: [tsvwg] Gen-art LC review: draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn-09

[<[e-mail]>]

Hi Robert,

Thank you very much for your constructive comments!
We will try to work them out as soon as possible!

Best regards,
Georgios


> -----Original Message-----
> From: tsvwg [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Robert Sparks
> Sent: donderdag 21 augustus 2014 22:44
> To: General Area Review Team; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; draft-ietf-
> [e-mail]
> Subject: [tsvwg] Gen-art LC review: draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn-09
> 
> 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-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn-09
> Reviewer: Robert Sparks
> Review Date: 21 Aug 2014
> IETF LC End Date: 26 Aug 2014
> IESG Telechat date: 2 Oct 2014
> 
> Summary: Ready (with nits) for publication as Experimental.
> 
> David's shepherd writeup points out that implementation and usage
> experience is desired before producing a proposed standard. Are there any
> points of concern about how this might behave (or misbehave) in a deployed
> network that such experience would inform? If so, it would be useful to call
> them out in the document.
> 
> It would be nicer if the document argued why there are no new security
> considerations introduced by the new behavior defined in this draft, rather
> than tacitly asserting that there aren't any.
> 
> The terminology section has lots of 2119 words in it. It's hard to tell when
> these have been copied from some other draft (and this is just restating
> them) vs when this draft is introducing a new requirement.
> Since a new requirement would likely be missed if it appeared only in a
> terminology section, would it be feasible to make sure anything new is well
> covered in section 3 or 4 and remove 2119 from these definitions altogether?
> 
> The rest of these comments are minor editorial nits:
> 
> Section 1.2, paragraph 3: "Intserv over Diffserv can operate over a statically
> provisioned Diffserv region or RSVP aware." is missing a a word somewhere.
> 
> Section 1.2 paragraph 4: "By using multiple aggregate reservations for the
> same PHB allows enforcement of the different preemption priorities within
> the aggregation region." doesn't parse. Should the initial "By"
> be deleted?
> 
> The definition for PCN-domain is very close to circular. Perhaps some words
> can be removed?
> 
>