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