Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-tp-cv-adv-03
review-ietf-pwe3-mpls-tp-cv-adv-03-genart-lc-shirazipour-2014-01-02-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-tp-cv-adv |
|---|---|---|
| Requested rev. | no specific revision (document currently at 06) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
| Deadline | 2014-01-16 | |
| Requested | 2013-12-30 | |
| Draft last updated | 2014-01-02 | |
| Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -03 by Meral Shirazipour
(diff)
Genart Telechat review of -04 by Meral Shirazipour (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Meral Shirazipour |
| State | Completed | |
| Review | review-ietf-pwe3-mpls-tp-cv-adv-03-genart-lc-shirazipour-2014-01-02 | |
| Reviewed rev. | 03 (document currently at 06) | |
| Review result | Ready | |
| Review completed: | 2014-01-02 |
Review
review-ietf-pwe3-mpls-tp-cv-adv-03-genart-lc-shirazipour-2014-01-02
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-pwe3-mpls-tp-cv-adv-03 Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour Review Date: 2014-01-02 IETF LC End Date: 2014-01-16 IESG Telechat date: NA Summary: This draft is ready to be published as Standards Track RFC but I have some editorial comments (mostly nits). Nits/editorial comments: Nits: -[Page 3] Introduction, line 4, "PW s"--extra space-->"PWs". -[Page 3] Section 2, "types of CV been defined"--missing have-->"types of CV have been defined" -[Page 4] Section 2.1 "It it isrecommended"--extra it and no space--->"It is recommended" -[Page 4] Section 2.1, this statement is repeated twice, another time on the sentence above it: "The Reserved field must be set to zeroes on transmit and ignored on receive. " -[Page 4], Table 1 "Signalling"--for consistency with the rest of the occurrences-->"Signaling" -[Page 5], Section 2.4 "advertized"--more common-->"advertised" -[Page 5], Section 2.4 missing "a" and "are": old: "and common set of proactive CV types advertized" new: "and a common set of proactive CV types are advertised" -[Page 5], Section 2.4 missing "are" and "the" old: " If multiple MPLS-TP CV types advertised by both PEs, then following list sorted in descending priority order is used: " new: " If multiple MPLS-TP CV types are advertised by both PEs, then the following list sorted in descending priority order is used: " General suggestion: - In the abstract something is missing to make it more suitable for standard track. Right now it only says "this document specifies how use of ABC affects XYZ". Examples (to inspire from), Section 1 and 2 mention: " This document specifies how signaling and selection processes are modified to ensure backward compatibility and allow use of proactive CV-CC-RDI over MPLS-TP PWs. " and " This document introduces four new CV types and, to accommodate them, a new VCCV Extended CV parameter for PW Interface Parameters Sub-TLV is defined. " Best Regards, Meral --- Meral Shirazipour Ericsson Research www.ericsson.com