[Gen-art] Genart LC review: draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength
Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Fri, 17 October 2014 16:33 UTC
Return-Path: <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2085D1A1B68; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 09:33:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SsYF27BQuzkw; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 09:33:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6BB61A1B94; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 09:33:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from unnumerable.local ([173.64.248.98]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.9/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s9HGXgx6020952 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 17 Oct 2014 11:33:42 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host [173.64.248.98] claimed to be unnumerable.local
Message-ID: <544144E1.9040405@nostrum.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 11:33:37 -0500
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.1.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, pce@ietf.org, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelenth.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/dkQKTzwd7WfDQEOWSRDs-8lNyNE
Subject: [Gen-art] Genart LC review: draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 16:33:49 -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-pce-wson-routing-wavelength-14 Reviewer: Robert Sparks Review Date: 17-Oct-2014 IETF LC End Date: 27-Oct-2014 IESG Telechat date: not currently scheduled for any telechat Summary: Ready for publication as an Informational RFC but with nits that should be considered before publication Nits/editorial comments: There are 6 authors listed - please double-check the guidance in section 4.1.1 of RFC7322. If retaining all the authors still makes sense, please help Adrian by providing an argument that he can pass to the RFC Editor. The shepherd writeup indicates a solution ID is ready. I didn't check to see how the requirements listed here were reflected there. Would it make sense to provide a reference? (While I see no harm in publishing the document, it's not clear how doing so will be helpful if the requirements were uncontentious as the writeup implies. There are few enough of them that adding a short list in the mechanism document might be more effective.) Items 2 and 3 in section 3.4 are confusing as currently written. 2 seems to be talking about the case that the current path is still optimal. Is 3 trying to talk about the case where there is no path, not even the current path, that will work? If so the "(i.e., other than the current path)" in 3 doesn't make sense. Should you have captured a requirement that any mechanism implementing these requirements be extensible to allow for cases like polarization based multiplexing when they eventually come along? Please consider reordering the sentences in section 3.5 - the last sentence seems to be talking about the first paragraph? You say "mechanisms defined in this document" several times in section 4, but this document defines no mechanisms.
- [Gen-art] Genart LC review: draft-ietf-pce-wson-r… Robert Sparks
- [Gen-art] Genart telechat review: draft-ietf-pce-… Robert Sparks
- Re: [Gen-art] Genart telechat review: draft-ietf-… Jari Arkko