[Gen-art] Gen-art LC review of draft-ietf-ippm-lmap-path-05

Elwyn Davies <elwynd@dial.pipex.com> Wed, 20 August 2014 17:06 UTC

Message-ID: <53F4D570.5030801@dial.pipex.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 18:05:52 +0100
From: Elwyn Davies <elwynd@dial.pipex.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: General area reviewing team <gen-art@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-ippm-lmap-path.all@tools.ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/bpnJoJFrt26r9L23tvkOCBw-SN0
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review of draft-ietf-ippm-lmap-path-05
Precedence: list

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-ippm-lmap-path-05.txt
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 20 August 2014
IETF LC End Date: 22 August 2014
IESG Telechat date: (if known) -

Summary:
Almost ready for the IESG with a few minor nits.

Major issues:
None

Minor issues:
None

Nits/editorial comments:
s1, para 2:
>    This topic has been previously developed in section 5.1 of [RFC3432],
>    and as part of the updated framework for composition and aggregation,
>    section 4 of [RFC5835] (which may also figure in the LMAP work
                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    effort).
      ^^^^^^^
The bracketed phrase sounds as if it is a comment on work in progress: 
I think it needs a different version for the long term when this becomes 
an RFC - either (if this is to do with the development of this 
specification) it did or didn't figure - but it could be something that 
is relevant to implementation/usage of the specification - I can't tell 
(yet? or indeed after reading the full draft) - in which case it needs 
rephrasing appropriately.

s3.1:
> A reference path is a serial combination of ... links, ...
A piece of extreme pedantry probably:  How would this apply to ECMP or 
Multi-Link Trunking connections where there is some parallelism in the link?

s3.3/s3.4 et seq:  Would it be better to use Dedicated Component and 
Shared Component (rather than ...ed component) to make it clear that the 
combination is the defined term?  Capitalization of these and other 
terms (Managed/Un-managed) etc should be consistent throughout.

s3.4/s4: I think Service Demarcation (Point) could be usefully treated 
as another piece of terminology definition and the current text in s4 
moved to s3 - and placed before s3.4 so that s3.4 then refers to the 
previous definition.

s4: Expand acronyms on first use please: "LTE UE" (in Service 
Demarcation) and "GRA GW" [The last two are currently  expanded in the 
caption of Figure 1 in s5].

s5, items 2C and 2D: s/from point/from the point/

s5, Notes, first bullet: s/Some use the terminology "on-net" and 
"off-net"/The terminology "on-net" and "off-net" is sometimes used/

s5, Notes, fourth bullet:
>       the remote end of the connecting link is an equivalent point
>       for some methods of measurement (To Be Specified Elsewhere).

Does the 'To Be Specified Elsewhere' mean that something has not yet 
been done that was intended to be done?  Maybe the RFC 5835 comment???

s5, Notes, last bullet: s/The GW of first transit/The GW of the first 
transit/

s7, bullet #1: s/The CPE is/The CPE consists of a/

[Gen-art] Gen-art LC review of draft-ietf-ippm-lm… Elwyn Davies
Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review of draft-ietf-ipp… MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review of draft-ietf-ipp… Elwyn Davies