ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [tsvwg] Gen-art LC review: draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn-09

2014-08-27 11:53:16
Hi Robert,

Thank you very much for your constructive comments!
We will try to work them out as soon as possible!

Best regards,
Georgios


-----Original Message-----
From: tsvwg [mailto:tsvwg-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Robert 
Sparks
Sent: donderdag 21 augustus 2014 22:44
To: General Area Review Team; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; 
tsvwg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; draft-ietf-
tsvwg-rsvp-pcn(_dot_)all(_at_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: [tsvwg] Gen-art LC review: draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn-09

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-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn-09
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 21 Aug 2014
IETF LC End Date: 26 Aug 2014
IESG Telechat date: 2 Oct 2014

Summary: Ready (with nits) for publication as Experimental.

David's shepherd writeup points out that implementation and usage
experience is desired before producing a proposed standard. Are there any
points of concern about how this might behave (or misbehave) in a deployed
network that such experience would inform? If so, it would be useful to call
them out in the document.

It would be nicer if the document argued why there are no new security
considerations introduced by the new behavior defined in this draft, rather
than tacitly asserting that there aren't any.

The terminology section has lots of 2119 words in it. It's hard to tell when
these have been copied from some other draft (and this is just restating
them) vs when this draft is introducing a new requirement.
Since a new requirement would likely be missed if it appeared only in a
terminology section, would it be feasible to make sure anything new is well
covered in section 3 or 4 and remove 2119 from these definitions altogether?

The rest of these comments are minor editorial nits:

Section 1.2, paragraph 3: "Intserv over Diffserv can operate over a statically
provisioned Diffserv region or RSVP aware." is missing a a word somewhere.

Section 1.2 paragraph 4: "By using multiple aggregate reservations for the
same PHB allows enforcement of the different preemption priorities within
the aggregation region." doesn't parse. Should the initial "By"
be deleted?

The definition for PCN-domain is very close to circular. Perhaps some words
can be removed?




<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>