I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
For more information, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-stp-04.txt Reviewer: Brian Carpenter Review Date: 2015-09-25 IETF LC End Date: 2015-09-23 IESG Telechat date: 2015-10-01 Summary: Ready with issues -------- Comments: --------- The author responded helpfully to the following Last Call comments but a new version is needed to fix them. It's impossible for a reviewer who is not expert in the details of 802.1Q to check many details in this draft, so I didn't. Major Issues: ------------- The draft does not properly explain the theory of operation. The messages are defined but it is not explained when a spanning tree is formed. Section 4 does not help with this. I think it should be explained at the end of the Use Case section. The main normative reference appears to be IEEE 802.1Q-2005. The current standard is IEEE 802.1Q-2014, which appears to be very different. I think this should be discussed in the text to avoid confusion. > 3.6. STP Synchronization Data TLV ... > When the total size of the TLVs to be transmitted > exceeds the maximal size of a fragment, these TLVs SHOULD be divided > into multiple sets, delimited by multiple pairs of STP > Synchronization Data TLVs, and filled into multiple fragments. There needs to be discussion of what happens if a fragment is lost. Minor Issues: ------------- > 3.2.1. STP Disconnect Cause sub-TLV ... > - Disconnect Cause String > > Variable length string specifying the reason for the disconnect, > to be used for operational purposes. Should it be specified whether this is ASCII, UTF-8,...? Nits: ----- Please expand Spanning Tree Protocol in the main title. Abbreviation PE used but not defined. Also, "provider edge" means an edge, which is an abstract concept, not a device. If the draft is discussing specific devices, it should say "PE device" or "PE router" or "PE switch". Abbreviation AC used but not defined. Abbreviation CE used but not defined. _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
