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 wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
Document: draft-ietf-pce-pcecp-interarea-reqs-05.txt
Reviewer: Miguel Garcia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Review Date: 2007-03-05
IESG Telechat date: 08 March 2007
Summary: The document is ready for publication as Informational RFC.
Comments: I have only a very subjective comment. In my opinion
requirements drafts should make an abstraction of the solution and just
note down the requirements. However, while reading this draft, I got the
impression that the authors have been thinking quite a lot on the
solution space, haven't separated them from the solution, and have
written down a few solutions. Just to illustrate a couple of examples.
On Section 4.8 the text reads:
The request message MUST allow for the inclusion of the address of
the originating PCC.
This is a solution for a requirement. Unfortunately it is not clear to
me what the requirement is. It is probably something related to the
"ability of a PCE to apply PCC-specific policies" or something like
that, where a solution is "to record the address of the PCC in request
messages, so that the PCE can apply a pcc-specific policy".
Another example in Section 4.4:
Hence the request message SHOULD allow a request for the
identification of path segments computed by a PCE, and the response
message SHOULD allow identifying the path segments computed by each
PCE.
Well, just an opinion.
/Miguel
--
Miguel A. Garcia tel:+358-50-4804586
Nokia Research Center Helsinki, Finland
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
