Telechat Review of draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-stp-04
review-ietf-pwe3-iccp-stp-04-genart-telechat-carpenter-2015-09-25-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-stp
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 05)
Type Telechat Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2015-09-29
Requested 2015-09-23
Authors Mingui Zhang, Huafeng Wen, Jie Hu
Draft last updated 2015-09-25
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -04 by Brian Carpenter (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -04 by Brian Carpenter (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -04 by Shawn Emery (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Brian Carpenter
State Completed
Review review-ietf-pwe3-iccp-stp-04-genart-telechat-carpenter-2015-09-25
Reviewed rev. 04 (document currently at 05)
Review result Ready with Issues
Review completed: 2015-09-25

Review
review-ietf-pwe3-iccp-stp-04-genart-telechat-carpenter-2015-09-25

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

For more information, please see the FAQ at
<

http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-stp-04.txt
Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review Date: 2015-09-25
IETF LC End Date: 2015-09-23
IESG Telechat date: 2015-10-01

Summary: Ready with issues
--------

Comments:
---------

The author responded helpfully to the following Last Call comments
but a new version is needed to fix them.

It's impossible for a reviewer who is not expert in the details
of 802.1Q to check many details in this draft, so I didn't.

Major Issues:
-------------

The draft does not properly explain the theory of operation.
The messages are defined but it is not explained when a spanning
tree is formed. Section 4 does not help with this. I think it
should be explained at the end of the Use Case section.

The main normative reference appears to be IEEE 802.1Q-2005. The current
standard is IEEE 802.1Q-2014, which appears to be very different.
I think this should be discussed in the text to avoid confusion.

> 3.6. STP Synchronization Data TLV
...
> When the total size of the TLVs to be transmitted
> exceeds the maximal size of a fragment, these TLVs SHOULD be divided
> into multiple sets, delimited by multiple pairs of STP
> Synchronization Data TLVs, and filled into multiple fragments.

There needs to be discussion of what happens if a fragment
is lost.

Minor Issues:
-------------

> 3.2.1. STP Disconnect Cause sub-TLV
...
>       - Disconnect Cause String
>
>        Variable length string specifying the reason for the disconnect,
>        to be used for operational purposes.

Should it be specified whether this is ASCII, UTF-8,...?

Nits:
-----

Please expand Spanning Tree Protocol in the main title.

Abbreviation PE used but not defined. Also, "provider edge" means an edge,
which is an abstract concept, not a device. If the draft is discussing
specific devices, it should say "PE device" or "PE router" or "PE switch".

Abbreviation AC used but not defined.

Abbreviation CE used but not defined.