Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-19
review-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-19-genart-lc-holmberg-2013-11-24-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 22)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2013-11-27
Requested 2013-10-31
Authors Luca Martini, Matthew Bocci, Florin Balus
Draft last updated 2013-11-24
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -19 by Christer Holmberg (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -20 by Christer Holmberg (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -19 by Klaas Wierenga (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Christer Holmberg
State Completed
Review review-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-19-genart-lc-holmberg-2013-11-24
Reviewed rev. 19 (document currently at 22)
Review result Almost Ready
Review completed: 2013-11-24

Review
review-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-19-genart-lc-holmberg-2013-11-24









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>




 




Document:                         draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-19




 




Reviewer:                           Christer Holmberg




 




Review Date:                     24 November 2013




 




IETF LC End Date:             27 November 2013




 




IETF Telechat Date:         N/A




 




Summary:  The document is well written, but there are some minor editorial nits that the authors may want to consider addressing before publication.




 




Major Issues: None




 




Minor Issues: None




 




Editorial nits:




 




Abstract:




-----------




 




Q_A_1:




 




The first sentence says:




 




    "There is a requirement for service providers to be able to extend the


       reach of pseudowires (PW) across multiple Packet Switched Network


       domains."




 




I would suggest to replace that with the sentence you are using later in the Introduction:




 




     "RFC 5254 describes the service provider requirements for extending


       the reach of pseudowires across multiple Packet Switched Network


       (PSN) domains."




 




...assuming, of course, that you are referring to the requirements in 5254 :)




 




Section 1:




------------




 




Q_1_1:




 




In the text, and in Figure 1, you use "CE" and "PE" terminology, but they are nowhere extended (e.g. on first occurance). In addition, "CE" is not defined in the
 document, and it is unclear whether the definition exists in some other document.




 




Q_1_2:




 




Should MPLS be extended on first occurance?




 




Q_1_3:




 




Should there be a reference to MPLS?




 




Q_1_4:




 




There is text saying  "Attachment Identifier (AII)" and later in the document (section 3.2)  "Attachment Identifier (AI)". Please make sure that both "AII" and
 "AI" are correctly extended (e.g. on first occurance).




 




 




Section 2:




------------




 




Q_2_1:




 




I suggest to say "This document describes..." rather than "In this document we describe...".




 




 




Q_2_2:




 




Should "LDP" and/or "TLV" be extended on first occurance?




 




Section 4:




------------




 




Q_4_1:




 




Should there be a reference for "Target Attachment Individual Identifier (TAII)"?




 




Q_4_2:




 




I would suggest to not use roman numbers in the bullet list in 4.2.3. It will become unclear if you need to reference (in a document, or elsewhere) a specific
 bullet in the list.




 




Section 5.1:




--------------




 




Q_5_1:




 




I think it would be useful to have a reference, and perhaps an example, or what is meant by "PSN mechanisms".




 




Q_5_2:




 




See Q_4_2 regarding usage of roman numbers.




 




 




Section 6:




------------




 




Q_6_1:




 




There is a sentence saying:




 




     "However, note that the length MUST be set to 14."




 




As the sentence contains a MUST, I would suggest to make the sentence more stronger, and remove "note". Perhaps simply something like:




 




    "The length value MUST be set to 14."




 




Section 7:




------------




 




Q_7_1:




 




The text indicates that the existing protocols may have security issues, but that they are not affected by this document. When I read it, it sounds like you are not very sure whether
 there are security issues, but you still know that they are not affected :)




 




I would suggest to re-word the second sentence to something like:




 




    "The extensions defined in this document do not affect the security issues associated with those protocols."




 




 




Section 8:




------------




 




Q_8_1:




 




In section 8.1, s/"IANA needs to"/"IANA is requested to"




 




Q_8_2:




 




In section 8.2, s/"The IANA is requested to"/"IANA is requested to"




 




 




Section 10:




--------------




 




Q_10_1:




 




I would suggest to move the paragraph to the beginning of section 11. Something like:




 




    "11. Acknowledgements







       The editors gratefully acknowledge the following additional co-


       authors of this document:  Mustapha Aissaoui, Nabil Bitar, Mike Loomis, David McDysan,


       Chris Metz, Andy Malis, Jason Rusmeisel, Himanshu Shah, Jeff


       Sugimoto.




 




       The editors also gratefully acknowledge the input of the following


       people:  Mike Duckett, Paul Doolan, Prayson Pate, Ping Pan, Vasile


       Radoaca, Yeongil Seo, Yetik Serbest, Yuichiro Wada."










Regards,




 




Christer