IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-p2psip-rpr-10

"Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com> Mon, 30 September 2013 11:19 UTC

Return-Path: <dromasca@avaya.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B98821F9C52 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Sep 2013 04:19:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.296
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.296 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.303, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9QlVloAyGLmC for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Sep 2013 04:19:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C05F21F9C34 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Sep 2013 04:19:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AucKAMFdSVKHCzI1/2dsb2JhbABagmYhOFKsL5ROgSkWbQeCJQEBAQECARIoPwUNARUHDhRCJgEEDg0ah14GAQugNJxVjyAxgyaBAwOZLoUrix+DJIIq
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.90,1007,1371096000"; d="scan'208";a="29901337"
Received: from unknown (HELO p-us1-erheast.us1.avaya.com) ([135.11.50.53]) by co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 30 Sep 2013 07:19:27 -0400
Received: from unknown (HELO AZ-FFEXHC03.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.58.13]) by p-us1-erheast-out.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 30 Sep 2013 07:10:48 -0400
Received: from AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com ([fe80::6db7:b0af:8480:c126]) by AZ-FFEXHC03.global.avaya.com ([135.64.58.13]) with mapi id 14.03.0146.000; Mon, 30 Sep 2013 07:19:26 -0400
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
To: "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-p2psip-rpr-10
Thread-Index: Ac69zqJT2OEq/CPUS2ihF3EhDUJPsg==
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 11:19:25 +0000
Message-ID: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA128ED5AA@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.64.58.46]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "draft-ietf-p2psip-rpr.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-p2psip-rpr.all@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-p2psip-rpr-10
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 11:19:30 -0000

I am the assigned 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 Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-p2psip-rpr-10
Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
Review Date: 9/30/13
IETF LC End Date: 9/30/13
IESG Telechat date: 

Summary: Ready with minor and editorial issues

Major issues:

Minor issues:

[I-D.ietf-p2psip-drr] is an Informational Reference. It is mentioned in several places, out of which at least one makes reading the referred document mandatory for anybody who intends to write an implementation of this document. This place is Section 7 which states: 

> This document uses the new RELOAD overlay configuration element,
   "route-mode", inside each "configuration" element, as defined in DRR
   document [I-D.ietf-p2psip-drr].

Nits/editorial comments:

1. Section 3.1 RPR includes just one sub-section 3.1.1 with a similar title. It looks like the division of the text in a subsection is not needed. 

2. The title of Section 3.2 is 'Scenarios where RPR can be beneficial'. In fact only 3.2.3 describes such a scenario, while 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 describe cases which would ease deployment of RPR (managed environments, bootstrap nodes). In other words 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 describe cases when RPR could be deployed and 3.2.3 a case when RPR should be deployed. 

3. In Section 6.2.2: 

> The option value is illustrated in the following figure, defining the
   ExtensiveRoutingModeOption structure:

However no figure follows.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email