I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>
Please resolve these comments along with any other comments you may receive.
Document: draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-bit-07.txt
Reviewer: Miguel Garcia <[email protected]>
Review Date: 23-May-2012
IESG Telechat date: 24-May-2012
Summary: The document is almost ready for publication as a standards
track RFC, but has some minor issues that should be fixed.
I reviewed version -06 of this document. At that time I had a few
comments. Most of them have been successfully addressed. In this review I
am addressing the leftovers and new issues.
Major issues: none
Minor issues:
- In my previous review, I highlighted that many lowercase 2119-reserved
words (like "must", "may", etc.) should actually be written in uppercase
to be really normative. Rather than analyzing each case on a one by one
basis, the authors have systematically written in uppercase all
2119-reserved words. The problem is that now some uppercase 2119-reserved
words don't make sense, and should be reverted to lowercase. Allow me
some examples:
* Sections 1 (Introduction) and 2 (Motivation and Scope). Since these
are descriptive sections in nature, normative text should not be written
here. If there is a need to write normative text, it should be written
later in any of the procedures sections.
* Section 5.2, 1st paragraph, the "MUST" does not really have a
normative intention as it is currently written:
One endpoint node of the redundant set of PWs is designated the
Master and is responsible for selecting which PW both endpoints MUST
use to forward user traffic.
* Section 15.2. I understand that this section describes scenarios or
examples of architectures. Therefore, it does not make sense to write
normative statements in here. If you need one, it should be written in
any of the procedures sections. There is a "SHOULD" on the 4th paragraph
of Section 15.2. The same applies to the last paragraph in Section 15.4
and last paragraph in Section 15.6.
Nits/editorial comments:
- The abstract has added a new sentence at the end. Unfortunately there
is a new reference "in RFC 5542 [9]". Abstracts shouldn't include
references. Just write "... in RFC 5542".
- There is an extra dot at the end of the second paragraph in Section
6.1. The same happen in the last paragraph of Section 15.3. And yet the
same in the third paragraph of Section 15.4, and the second paragraph in
15.6.
- Section 15.4, second paragraph, the term "Figure" is repeated.
- Section 15.5, the last paragraph starts with some strange indentation.
/Miguel
--
Miguel A. Garcia
+34-91-339-3608
Ericsson Spain
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
