Early Review of draft-ietf-pals-vccv-for-gal-03

Request Review of draft-ietf-pals-vccv-for-gal
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 06)
Type Early Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2015-05-20
Requested 2015-05-13
Authors Thomas Nadeau, Luca Martini, Stewart Bryant
Draft last updated 2015-05-20
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -05 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -05 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -03 by Loa Andersson (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Loa Andersson 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-pals-vccv-for-gal-03-rtgdir-early-andersson-2015-05-20
Reviewed rev. 03 (document currently at 06)
Review result Has Nits
Review completed: 2015-05-20



I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for
draft-ietf-pals-vccv-for-gal. The Routing Directorate seeks to review
all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last
call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of
the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more
information about the Routing Directorate, please see


Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs,
it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other
IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them
through discussion or by updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-pals-vccv-for-gal-03.txt
 Reviewer: Loa Andersson
 Review Date: 2015-05-18
 IETF LC End Date: (I don't think that the IETF LC has started)
 Intended Status: Proposed Standard


- This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that
  should be considered prior to publication.
  Note: I also have a question about a security statement in the draft
  that I don't know if it has been addressed.

- Overview of the draft quality and readability.
  The document is technically sound.
  The document is sometimes a bit hard to read, but I guess that
  will be sorted out by the RFC Editor.

- Anything else that you think will be helpful toward understanding
  your review.
  I normally do my reviews by Word with change bars and comments,
  I've included that file for details.

Major Issues:
- I put the question on the security statement at the end of the
  second paragraph in the Introduction here. I'm not sure it is a
  major issue, but I want to lift to make sure that it is properly

  If I understand correctly "..., and is a security risk" refers to the
  fact that OAM packets might be sent over the attachment circuit(s) if
  the TTL is not set right.

  OAM packets on the attachment circuit as the specific problems this
  could involve is not listed as a security risk in 6073. The security
  section of 6073 talks about the possibilities that pay load packets
  are forwarded on to the attachment circuit, but does not say anything
  about OAM packets.

Minor Issues:
- I think I could say "No minor issues found" and say that everything
  else is nit, but since some of the thing captured in the word file
  are for clarity, e.g. the last paragraph in section 4 (fate sharing)
  and the first paragraph in section 5 (what MUST be inspected), so I
  guess that there are things that sits on the fence between minor and
  nits. However, I think that they are very easy to resolve, in that
  respect they can be treated as nits.
- A second minor issue is that I find the Abstract less informative than
  I would want, it should be beefed up and clarified a bit.

- The rest of the comments in the word file are nits, e.g.:

  -- Naming of the new channel (I think these to names refer to the
     same thing
     MPLS VCCV Control Channel (CC)
     GAL VCCV Control Channel Type

  -- expanding abbreviations the first time they are used

  -- expanding all abbreviations that is not on the RFC Editors
     list of well-known



Loa Andersson                        email: loa at mail01.huawei.com
Senior MPLS Expert                          loa at pi.nu
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64