(Oops, forgot to copy the gen-art list. Sorry for the repeat)
On Jun 29, 2009, at 4:55 PM, Ben Campbell 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 resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Document: draft-ietf-ancp-framework-10
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2009-06-29
IETF LC End Date: 2009-06-29
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary:
This draft is on the right track, but has issues that need work
prior to publication.
Major issues:
-- Section 4.1, first bullet:
I am concerned that a catchall "address all the use cases"
requirement is too vague. For the most part, the use cases are not
in "requirements language". It's going to be hard to gauge
compliance without analyzing the use cases to extract concrete
requirements, either now or in the future. (I note that you have
requirements breaking down some of the use cases, but not all.)
-- 4.7.8:
The draft should describe (or reference a description of) the
wholesale model, how it differs from other models, and what the
relationship between wholesalers and retailers. This sounds like a
business model, but what does it mean technically?
-- 7 (security requirements)
This draft depends almost entirely on draft-ietf-ancp-security-
threats for its security requirements. The security requirements in
that draft are substantial. However, this draft only mentions that
document in passing, as an informational reference. I think that
needs to be a normative reference, with explicit language in this
draft stating that those requirements are incorporated. (I
understand this draft is informational track, but it's stating
requirements on protocol design.)
Minor issues:
-- Section 2.4: The document seems to assume RADIUS is the only AAA
protocol. Is RADIUS the only such protocol in scope? That is, no
DIAMETER or other potential AAA protocols?
-- Section 3.4.1, paragraph 6:
I sounds like anything not on the white or grey list is effectively
on the black list, right? Then why have an explicit black list at all?
-- section 4,1, second bullet:
This is vague--can you enumerate or reference the "various
technologies"? Even if they are mentioned elsewhere in the doc, it
would be good to reference them.
-- 5th bullet:
"fast-paced" is vague--can you state something more concrete?
-- 6th bullet:
Why 5000? What is the motivation behind that particular number?
-- 4.3, first bullet:
Can you characterize how "limited"?
-- 5th bullet: (use case negotiation)
Is this limited to the use cases in this draft, or is this intended
as an extensibility mechanism?
-- 4.6.2, 1st bullet:
SHOULD use, or SHOULD be able to use? If the former, why? What harm
is done by using separate facilities?
-- 4.6.3:
Is this reasonably in scope? This sounds more like a product
requirement than a protocol requirements. (This comment replies to
several other requirements concerning interactions with network
management.)
-- 4.6.7, 2nd bullet (also 4.7.7, 2nd bullet)
Can you elaborate on the requirements to "dampen notifications"?
Nits/editorial comments:
--Section 1, paragraph 1: Please expand ONU on first use.
-- Section 3.1, second bullet: first sentence is a fragment.
-- Section 3.4.1, White, Black, and Grey list entry descriptions:
Is this notation (e.g. <<G=g.h.i.l> ) well known? Is there a
description that can be referenced?
-- section 3.4.2, paragraph 3: "...AN and NAS MUST ensure admission
control..."
Does it make sense to use normative language in a use case
description?
-- section 4 and subsections, general:
There are enough bulleted requirements in section 4 that it would be
really helpful to have them numbered. Otherwise, you're going to
have to talk about "The nth bullet in section X.Y.X" when you
discuss specific requirements.
-- last bullet on page 30: "This MUST allow to retrieve... "
Missing word(s)?
-- 4,3, 2nd bullet: "... allowing to inform ..." -- missing word(s)?
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
