Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels-
review-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels-secdir-lc-nystrom-2011-01-04-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 11)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2011-01-03
Requested 2010-12-16
Draft last updated 2011-01-04
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -?? by Magnus Nystrom
Assignment Reviewer Magnus Nystrom
State Completed
Review review-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels-secdir-lc-nystrom-2011-01-04
Review completed: 2011-01-04

Review
review-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels-secdir-lc-nystrom-2011-01-04

I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
IESG.  These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the
security area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat
these comments just like any other last call comments.

This document defines a new lambda (wavelength) label format for use
in GMPLS signaling and routing.

I have no particular security concerns with this document.

A few editorial comments:

- General: The document seems to be in need of a proof-read; there are
several examples where the wordings make the intent behind a sentence
unclear - I cite some of them below.

- Section 2: "The Label_Set object is made by only one sub channel
that must be same as the Upstream_Label object": Suggest changing to
something like (if I did not misunderstand the intent with this
sentence):  "The Label_set object shall contain a single sub-channel
that must be the same as the Upstream_Label object"
- Section 2, last paragraph is unclear and should preferably be
re-written for clarity.
- Section 3.1, third paragraph, unclear
- Sectoin 3.1, why state that n is a two's complement integer? Seems
simpler to state it is just an integer? (it does make sense to state
it in 3.2, however)

-- Magnus