Last Call Review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-ring-protection-05
review-ietf-mpls-tp-ring-protection-05-secdir-lc-tsou-2013-04-18-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-ring-protection
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 06)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2013-04-18
Requested 2013-04-11
Authors Yaacov Weingarten, Stewart Bryant, Daniele Ceccarelli, Diego Caviglia, Francesco Fondelli, Marco Corsi, Wu Bo, Xuehui Dai
Draft last updated 2013-04-18
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -05 by Vijay Gurbani (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -05 by Tina Tsou (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Tina Tsou
State Completed
Review review-ietf-mpls-tp-ring-protection-05-secdir-lc-tsou-2013-04-18
Reviewed rev. 05 (document currently at 06)
Review result Has Nits
Review completed: 2013-04-18

Review
review-ietf-mpls-tp-ring-protection-05-secdir-lc-tsou-2013-04-18






Dear all,




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.




 




It is technically ready, but a few editorial suggestions are below.




 




Typo, second-last paragraph of Section 1, last sentence:




  s/doxument/document/




 




Editorial suggestion: introduce the abbreviations P2P and P2MP in their respective bullets at the beginning of Section 1.1. According to the RFC Editor's list
 of abbreviations at http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-style-guide/abbrev.expansion.txt,




these are not considered well-known, therefore need to be spelled out on first use. Note the capitalization, per the RFC Editor's list.




 




In case 3. of Section 1.1, delete "that" after "operator command" in the first line to make it consistent with the other two cases.




 




Section 1.2 first paragraph last sentence: the subject of the sentence is the singular "Requirement", hence s/are/is/ in the final line.




 




The authors can consider whether they need to spell out LSP and LSR at the start of Section 1.3. Again, the RFC Editor does not consider these to be "well-known"
 abbreviations.




 




Second paragraph below Figure 1: The last sentence begins: "Coordination of the switchover ..." I assume the intention here is to indicate that in this case
 operation is not so simple as the first sentence indicates. 




That should perhaps be signalled by beginning the sentence with:





"However, coordination of the switchover ..."




 




Sentence before Figure 7: s/complimentary/complementary/




 




Spell out e2e in the second paragraph below Figure 8, since it is used once only.




 




 




Thank you,




Tina