[apps-discuss] APPSDIR Review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-use-cases-and-design-06.txt

Joseph Yee <jyee@afilias.info> Wed, 06 February 2013 17:10 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2013 12:10:32 -0500
Message-ID: <CAF1dMVGFng3W2Y=ZRJQtjAceODk_0owx1weDUbvvXa9x4gSViQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Joseph Yee <jyee@afilias.info>
To: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-use-cases-and-design.all@tools.ietf.org, apps-discuss@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Subject: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR Review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-use-cases-and-design-06.txt
Precedence: list

I have been selected as the Applications Area Review Team reviewer for
this draft (for background on apps-review, please see
http://www.apps.ietf.org/content/applications-area-review-team).

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-use-cases-and-design-06
Title: MPLS-TP Applicability; Use Cases and Design
Reviewer: Joseph Yee
Review Date: Feb 6, 2013

Summary: This draft is ready for publication, would be better if the
editorial changes can put into the draft.

Major Issues:
none

Minor Issues:
(1) "Applicability" in Abstract and Introduction
"This document provides applicability, use case studies and network
design considerations for the Multiprotocol Label Switching Transport
Profile (MPLS-TP)."

Mostly because of how my brain was wired (or how my high school
teacher wired my brain). When I see text structured this way, I'm
expecting three sections rather than two.  Note I have no issues about
the discussion of applicability in this draft at all.  Then I realized
more from how the title was written that it's a draft with two major
topic sections rather than three.

My suggestion for the text:
"This document provides the applicability of Multiprotocol Label
Switching Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) with use case studies and
network design considerations."

(2) Section 1 Introduction 5th paragraph
"LSP Ping Extension for on-demand CC-CV [RFC6426], fault allocation,
and remote integrity check."
"and switch-over triggering with Link Defect Indication (LDI)"
Any reference for the 'fault allocation, and remote integrity check"
and LDI that could be added to the draft?

(3) Section 2 Terminology: 4G
"4G       4th Generation Mobile network: LTE"
This is close to nits.  '4G' is not only LTE right?  Do you mean to
use 4G to refer only LTE is this draft?  If the section title "4G/LTE
Mobile Backhaul" and its text at section 3.3.2 does not confuse
readers who is more familiar with the topic, I don't think this is an
issue.


Nits:
(1) Terminology through out the draft
There are several occasions where acronyms were not logged in the
terminology section (ex. PW), and some text don't use terminology
consistently (ex. SP vs service provider).  These are not the only
two, but I think RFC Editors provides the best help in this regard.

(2) Section 7 Acknowledgements
"...  thank Stewart for his text contribution on timing ..."
Stewart who?  ;)

Best Regards,
Joseph Yee

[apps-discuss] APPSDIR Review of draft-ietf-mpls-… Joseph Yee
Re: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR Review of draft-ietf-m… Joseph Yee
Re: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR Review of draft-ietf-m… Luyuan Fang (lufang)
Re: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR Review of draft-ietf-m… Luyuan Fang (lufang)