I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-gach-gal-04.txt Reviewer: Miguel Garcia <[email protected]> Review Date: 12-May-2005 IETF LC End Date: 14-May-2005 IESG Telechat date: (if known)Summary: The document is technically ready for publication as a standards track RFC, but there is such a number of minor issues that a new revision is recommended.
Major issues: Minor issues: - Rule of 5. The document lists 6 authors, but the RFC Editor has a guideline for not exceeding the number of 5 authors. Please read Section 2.12 of http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-editor/instructions2authors.txt - You have an unnumbered section called Requirements Language (in between the Abstract and the Table of Contents). I think this does not follow the guidelines of the RFC Editor. See the previously mentioned document, now in Section 4, where you can see that the Abstract is followed by the Table of Contents, not by "Requirements Language". Usually the paragraph that refers to RFC 2119 is placed within the "Terminology" section. - Same comment for Section 1.1, Contributing authors, which according to the structure, it should instead go to the end of the document, before the Security Considerations. - And same comment for Acknowledgments, which should go in between Contributors and Security Considerations.- On Sections 1 and 4.1 the IP address 127/8 should be written as 127.0.0.0/8.
- On Section 3.1, first paragraph, the text reads:
The structure of ACH TLVs that
MAY follow an ACH TLV Header is defined and described in the
following sections.
I am not sure what the text wants to say, because it mean want to say either:
a) The structure of ACH TLVs MAY follow an ACH TLV Header ...
b) The structure of ACH TLVs that can follow an ACH TLV Header ..
If the intention is a), then this text should be written in Section 3.3,
which is the section that describes the ACH TLV object. If the intention
is b), then it is correctly placed, but please do use "can" instead of
"MAY".
- On Section 4, 1st paragraph, last sentence: "this document suggests the value 13", I think this should only be a note in the IANA Section, so it should be deleted from here.
- On Section 4.2.1.1, last paragraph starts:"The G-ACh message, the ACH or the GAL SHOULD NOT be modified towards the targeted destination".
My recommendation is to make the sentence in active voice, there, it is easier to see which node has the requirement. So, I suggest something around these lines:
"LSRs (or whatever node) SHOULD NOT modify...."And this brings me to another comment... I don't have a clear explanation for exceptions to the "SHOULD NOT". Therefore, I believe it should be a "MUST NOT".
This comment also applies to the last paragraph of Section 4.2.1.2. - On Section 4.2.1.2, the last paragraph on page 13 starts with: "To send a G-ACh message on a control channel..."That is a horrible long and complicated sentence, which has normative text. So, please, split the long one into smaller parts, isolating the normative aspects from the introduction and motivation, so that it can be clearly understood which entity MAY do what.
- On the last paragraph of Section 5, replace the "it" in "it MAY increment" with the real actor, presumably "An LER, LSR, or PE".
- Section 8. The suggestion to IANA should be a note that with time, gets deleted by the RFC Editor before publication of the RFC.
- I noticed that IANA has reviewed the document and has some questions and comments, so I guess the authors will address them as well.
/Miguel -- Miguel A. Garcia +34-91-339-3608 Ericsson Spain
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
