I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-oam-reqs-01.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. This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be fixed before publication. Section 2.1 This requirements draft uses RFC 2119 terminology (MUST, SHOULD, etc.). In addition to incorporation of the RFC 2119 boilerplate (already done), please explain that these requirements are being stated as requirements of OAM mechanism and protocol *development*, as opposed to the usual application of RFC 2119 requirements to an actual protocol, as this draft does not specify any protocol. Section 2.3 OAM: Operations and Management OA&M: Operations, Administration and Maintenance. That's an invitation for confusion. The OA&M acronym is not used in this draft - please remove it from this section. Section 4.1 The discussion of limits on proactive OAM loading should probably explicitly say that reactive OAM (dealing with something that has gone wrong) may violate these limits (i.e., cause visible traffic degradation) if that's necessary or useful to try to fix whatever has gone wrong. Also, a wording nit: In practice, of course, the requirements in the previous paragraph may be overcome by careful specification of the anticipated data throughput of LSRs or data links, "overcome" --> "satisfied" or "met" 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
