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-pce-pcep-svec-list-04.txt
Reviewer: Miguel Garcia <[email protected]>
Review Date:
IETF LC End Date: 2010-03-08
IESG Telechat date: 2010-03-11
Summary: The document is ready for publication as an Informational RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
- I noticed that the draft, although it uses normative verbs, they are
all written in lower case. Additionally, there is no dependency to RFC
2119. I guess this is done on purpose because the draft is Informational.
Is this the intention?
In the past the IETF has created Informational RFCs that contain
normative text written in dependency with RFC 2119. I am not sure if
there is a directive to change that way of working now.
Nits/editorial comments:
- Expand acronyms at their first occurrence. This includes: SRLG, BRPC.
- Section 5.2, first sentence in the 2nd paragraph. I guess the sentence
looks incomplete. At least, it looks like an introductory part, but there
is no consequence:
If a PCC sends path computation requests to a PCE and then sends
another path computation requests, which are dependent on the first
requests and has been associated by using a SVEC list.
/Miguel
--
Miguel A. Garcia
+34-91-339-3608
Ericsson Spain
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
