Eric:
I did not receive this review until the IESG Telechat was over. It
was too late. Based on the message timestamp, the message was sent
an hour after the IESG Telechat began.
I hope the authors will consider your comments for Auth48.
Russ
At 01:33 PM 6/19/2008, Eric Gray wrote:
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: Control Protocol Extensions for TDM Pseudo wires March 2008
draft-ietf-pwe3-tdm-control-protocol-extensi-07.txt
Reviewer: Eric Gray
Review Date: 19 June 2008
IESG Telechat date: 19 June 2008
Summary:
=======
This draft is nearly ready for publishing as a Proposed Standard
Comments:
========
Terminology and Acronyms:
Below is a list of not necessarily well-know acronyms and/or
terms used in this draft that are not defined there. These
are listed in the order in which I first encountered them in
the draft.
TDM
MPLS
PW
PE
FEC
AGI
SAII
TAII
TLV
T1
DS1
E3
T3
DS3
CESoPSN
TDMoIP
AAL (AAL1, AAL2)
CAS
J1 (attachment circuits)
CEP
CID
SAToP
MTU
PDU
VAD
RTP
Differential timestamping
SF
SSRC
CE
While it is fairly clear that the authors know what these
acronyms (or terms) mean, and it is highly probable that a
majority of the readers do as well, it would help make the
draft more readable if at least most of these were defined
in a specific section - possibly including a reference for
the cases where they are defined elsewhere, either directly
or indirectly. Or they could be explicitly expanded in the
first instance. Some of the acronyms are expanded at some
point in the draft - though the cases where such expansions
occur at the first instance of the acronym are not included
in the above list.
_______________________________________________________________
The Abstract should include no references and a minimum of
(un-expanded) acronyms.
_______________________________________________________________
The phrase "G.711 encoding" is used without a reference.
_______________________________________________________________
TBA (by) IANA values? There are for places where a value
is listed as TBA by IANA. Three are listed in an unnumbered
table on page 4, and another occurs in Figure 1 ("Format of
the TDM Options Interface Parameter"). It is not absolutely
clear that this fourth one is the same as the third one in
the table on page 4 (though it seems likely that it is). In
the IANA Considerations section, only 3 values are listed as
needing to be assigned by IANA. Given that the "TBA by IANA"
values have to be updated (most likely) by the RFC editor, it
would be helpful if these were given slightly less ambiguous
designations.
_______________________________________________________________
Out of curiosity, because inquiring minds want to know, why is
"Structure-Agnostic TDM over Packet (SAToP)", RFC 4553 listed
as Normative while "Structure-aware TDM Circuit Emulation
Service over Packet Switched Network (CESoPSN)", RFC 5086 is
listed as Informative?
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
