Background for those who may be unaware of GenART: GenART is the Area Review Team for the General Area of the IETF. We advise the General Area Director (i.e. the IETF/IESG chair) by providing more in depth reviews than he could do himself of documents that come up for final decision in IESG telechat. I was selected as the GenART member to review this document. Below is my review, which was written specifically with an eye to the GenART process, but since I believe that it will be useful to have these comments more widely distributed, others outside the GenART group are included.
Review criteria: "Is this document a reasonable contribution to the area of Internet engineering which it covers? If not, what changes would make it so?" This draft is on the right track, but has open issues described in the review. I am not a routing expert, so I can't cross-check the technical details, but the draft reads well. OTOH, idnits is not happy: idnits 1.95 tmp/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-eval-02.txt: Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html: * The document seems to lack a Security Considerations section. * The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. Checking conformance with RFC 3978/3979 boilerplate... * Found RFC 3978 Section 5.4 paragraph 1 boilerplate (on line 910), which is fine, but *also* found RFC 2026 Section 10.4C paragraph 1 boilerplate on line 42. It should be removed. * The document is more than 15 pages and seems to lack a Table of Contents. Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt: - The page length should not exceed 58 lines per page, but there was 19 longer pages, the longest (page 2) being 60 lines Miscellaneous warnings: - The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not match the current year Experimental warnings: - Missing Reference: [GMPLS-ISIS] is mentioned on line 354, but not defined - Unused Reference: [RFC2026] is defined on line 653, but not referenced - Unused Reference: [RFC3477] is defined on line 661, but not referenced Of these, the missing security considerations section is a particular problem, as this document ought to include an overview of the security consequences of applying the routing protocols to an ASON and of the proposed routing protocol extensions. That really needs to be supplied prior to IESG approval, and a "Discuss" is therefore recommended. Thanks, --David ---------------------------------------------------- David L. Black, Senior Technologist EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748 +1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754 ---------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
