Forgot to send it to this list.
Tom Taylor wrote:
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for
draft-ietf-v6ops-bb-deployment-scenarios-04.txt.
For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html>.
Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
Summary: the document is basically ready but has some issues, mostly
editorial. It could use a general tidying up of language, something too
extensive to report on in this note. However, the editorial items are
not significant enough to hinder understanding of the document. The
document is hugely repetitive in its chosen format, and it is tempting
to consider a form that draws together the common aspects leaving the
technology-specific sections to focus on what is different in their
respective cases. Often the difference lies solely in the names of the
affected components.
Notes:
1. In section 6, DOCSIS is the layer 2 for cable systems mainly in North
America. Europe uses DVB and Japan has another system. These are all
described as separate annexes of ITU-T Recommendation J.112. The
concrete suggestion for the present document is to add the words "in
North America" to the first sentence of the second para of section 6, so
that it reads:
"DOCSIS standardizes and documents the operation of data over Cable
Networks in North America."
2. The second-last paragraph of section 6.2.2.2.4 suddenly starts
talking about the CMTS/ER, where the rest of the section just talks
about the ER. Presumably it should just be "ER" in this paragraph too.
3. What is the justification for treating the last three scenarios of
6.2.2 as different scenarios rather than variants of the same scenario?
The only difference is that when a GWR is present it needs to obtain a
/48 prefix so it can delegate addresses to the hosts.
4. Bullet 4 of 6.2.2, section 6.2.2.4 text, and Figure 6.2.2.4 are
inconsistent. Presumably the title of the scenario expresses the intent:
the CMTS is upgraded to handle IPv6, and the GWR handles IPv6. The
conclusion is that there is no tunnel as shown in the figure and
further, that IPv6 packets are flowing through the CM. This raises the
question: why does the CM not have the same requirements as the CM in
the previous scenario?
5. Since section 7.3 really applies to all deployment scenarios, it more
properly belongs in the beginning sections of the document, where the
individual deployment scenario sections can refer to it.
Nits:
IDnits reports that reference [MFF] (line 3464) is undefined, and that
references [12], [16], and [20] are unused.
IDnits points out that the copyright notice at the end of the
boilerplate is a year out of date.
Global: existent -> existing
Global: every occurence of "form" but one is a typo, should be "from"
Section 6.2.2: there is a lot of repetition between the first and second
paragraphs. They should be combined.
Third-last paragraph of section 8.2.1.2: duplicate final sentence.
Fourth-last paragraph of section 8.2.2.2: that same sentence is present,
and seems to cover the same ground as the second sentence of the next
paragraph.
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
