Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pcp-port-set-10
review-ietf-pcp-port-set-10-genart-lc-shirazipour-2015-10-15-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-pcp-port-set
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 13)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2015-10-20
Requested 2015-10-01
Authors Qiong Sun, Mohamed Boucadair, Senthil Sivakumar, Cathy Zhou, Tina Tsou, Simon Perreault
Draft last updated 2015-10-15
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -10 by Meral Shirazipour (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -11 by Meral Shirazipour (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -10 by Jouni Korhonen (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Meral Shirazipour 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-pcp-port-set-10-genart-lc-shirazipour-2015-10-15
Reviewed rev. 10 (document currently at 13)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2015-10-15

Review
review-ietf-pcp-port-set-10-genart-lc-shirazipour-2015-10-15






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-pcp-port-set-10




Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour




Review Date: 2015-10-10




IETF LC End Date:  2015-10-14




IESG Telechat date: NA




 




 




Summary:




This draft is ready to be published as Standards Track RFC but I have some comments.




 




 




Major issues:




N/A




 




Minor issues:




-[Page 7], Section 4.1, "If the PCP Client does not know the exact number of ports its requires, it MAY then set the Port Set Size to 0xffff, indicating that it is willing to accept as many ports as the PCP server can offer."




Question/clarification to add: Mention if there a mechanism where the server will know which of the mapped ports are going to be used by the client? and which mappings can be discarded/reused in a subsequent request.




 




 




Nits/editorial comments:




-[Page 6], "In particular, the PREFER_FAILURE option MUST NOT be present in a request that contains a PORT_SET option.".




Suggestion: Please add a sentence after this one suggesting why PREFER_FAILURE option MUST NOT be used. It was not clear to me until I read the rest of the draft...although I am still not sure why this behavior is to be a MUST NOT.




 




-[Page 8], Section 4.3, "There is intentionally no port set capability discovery mechanism.".




What is the intention? I could not find anything on the list discussion. It would be good to clarify this to make this section puroposeful.




 




-[Page 16] ,  Ref. [RFC7596] should be revised-it still refers to the draft.




 




 




Best Regards,




Meral




---




Meral Shirazipour




Ericsson




Research




www.ericsson.com