Telechat Review of draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-bit-

Request Review of draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-bit
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 09)
Type Telechat Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2012-05-22
Requested 2012-05-17
Authors Praveen Muley, Mustapha Aissaoui
Draft last updated 2012-05-23
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-telechat-garcia-2012-05-23
Review completed: 2012-05-23


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

Please resolve these comments along with any other comments you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-bit-07.txt
Reviewer: Miguel Garcia <Miguel.A.Garcia at>
Review Date: 23-May-2012
IESG Telechat date: 24-May-2012

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

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

I reviewed version -06 of this document. At that time I had a few 

comments. Most of them have been successfully addressed. In this review I 

am addressing the leftovers and new issues.

Major issues: none

Minor issues:

- In my previous review, I highlighted that many lowercase 2119-reserved 

words (like "must", "may", etc.) should actually be written in uppercase 

to be really normative. Rather than analyzing each case on a one by one 

basis, the authors have systematically written in uppercase all 

2119-reserved words. The problem is that now some uppercase 2119-reserved 

words don't make sense, and should be reverted to lowercase. Allow me 

some examples:

  * Sections 1 (Introduction) and 2 (Motivation and Scope). Since these 

are descriptive sections in nature, normative text should not be written 

here. If there is a need to write normative text, it should be written 

later in any of the procedures sections.

  * Section 5.2, 1st paragraph, the "MUST" does not really have a 

normative intention as it is currently written:

   One endpoint node of the redundant set of PWs is designated the
   Master and is responsible for selecting which PW both endpoints MUST
   use to forward user traffic.

  * Section 15.2. I understand that this section describes scenarios or 

examples of architectures. Therefore, it does not make sense to write 

normative statements in here. If you need one, it should be written in 

any of the procedures sections. There is a "SHOULD" on the 4th paragraph 

of Section 15.2. The same applies to the last paragraph in Section 15.4 

and last paragraph in Section 15.6.

Nits/editorial comments:

- The abstract has added a new sentence at the end. Unfortunately there 

is a new reference "in RFC 5542 [9]". Abstracts shouldn't include 

references. Just write "... in RFC 5542".

- There is an extra dot at the end of the second paragraph in Section 

6.1. The same happen in the last paragraph of Section 15.3. And yet the 

same in the third paragraph of Section 15.4, and the second paragraph in 


- Section 15.4, second paragraph, the term "Figure" is repeated.

- Section 15.5, the last paragraph starts with some strange indentation.

Miguel A. Garcia
Ericsson Spain