Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-bit-
review-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-bit-genart-lc-garcia-2012-03-21-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-bit
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 09)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2012-03-21
Requested 2012-03-09
Authors Praveen Muley, Mustapha Aissaoui
Draft last updated 2012-03-21
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -?? by Miguel García
Genart Telechat review of -?? by Miguel García
Assignment Reviewer Miguel García
State Completed
Review review-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-bit-genart-lc-garcia-2012-03-21
Review completed: 2012-03-21

Review
review-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-bit-genart-lc-garcia-2012-03-21

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (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 comments you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-bit-06.txt
Reviewer: Miguel Garcia <miguel.a.garcia at ericsson.com>
Review Date: 2012-03-20
IETF LC End Date: 2012-03-21



Summary: The document is almost ready for publication as a standards 


track RFC, but has some minor issues that should be fixed.




Major issues: none

Minor issues:



- I noticed that many RFC-2119 alike reserved words are written in lower 


case (thus, they are not normative), where I think they should be 


normative, in order to achieve interoperability. Allow me to highlight a 


few examples:






  + Section 5.1, bullet point 2: Both Note 1 and Note 2 include "it is 


recommended", where I think it should be "it is RECOMMENDED". As a 


collateral effect of this, if you agree to write uppercase words here, 


you need to remove the terms "Note 1" and "Note 2", because notes should 


be informative by nature; they should not contain normative text.






 + Section 5.1, last paragraph on page 10. "should be generated". A bit 


later on the same paragraph, but now on page 11: "a PE may use ..."






 + Section 5.1, page 11. The paragraph under the bullet point "Active 


state" contains "the PE nodes must implement". And the paragraph under 


the bullet point "Standby State" contains "The endpoints of the PW may 


also allow..."






 + Section 5.2, 4th paragraph on page 12: There are three instances of 


"must" that should be "MUST".






 + Section 6.2, second paragraph: "the PW MUST also not be used" should 


include the NOT in uppercase, and probably remove the "also" (remember 


that "MUST not" does not equal "MUST NOT" or "MUST also NOT".






Nits/editorial comments:



- As an external reviewer, not familiar with the PW technology, I would 


appreciate if the draft adds a section (perhaps inside Section 3) where 


all the acronyms are expanded, and perhaps briefly described. Otherwise, 


it is hard to read the draft, and try to find where is the first 


occurrence of the acronym, where it was expanded.






- Table 1: In the STANDBY state, the last action is "No action", whereas 


the rest of the actions in the table, where there is no action, the text 


is set to "None". So, probably this one should also be set to "None".






- Section 15.5, first paragraph, there is extra spacing and extra dots at 


the end of this first paragraph.






/Miguel
--
Miguel A. Garcia
+34-91-339-3608
Ericsson Spain