IETF Logo Mail Archive

[RTG-DIR] Routing Directorate review of draft-ietf-pals-mc-pon-04

Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net> Tue, 16 August 2016 01:31 UTC

Return-Path: <gih@apnic.net>
X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63B5112D0AD for <rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Aug 2016 18:31:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -108.148
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-108.148 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.247, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
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 61YoQm46_isB for <rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Aug 2016 18:31:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ao-mailgw.apnic.net (ao-mailgw.apnic.net [203.119.102.25]) (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 E2F581288B8 for <rtg-dir@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Aug 2016 18:31:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from iamda3.org.apnic.net (unknown [IPv6:2001:dd8:9:2::101:249]) by ao-mailgw.apnic.net (Halon Mail Gateway) with ESMTPS; Tue, 16 Aug 2016 11:26:43 +1000 (AEST)
Received: from dhcp150.potaroo.net (203.119.101.249) by iamda3.org.apnic.net (203.119.111.31) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.123.3; Tue, 16 Aug 2016 11:26:47 +1000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net>
In-Reply-To: <BY2PR0201MB191086ADA3FE52E0E157D93884120@BY2PR0201MB1910.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 11:26:43 +1000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <9634C2D3-9547-4602-A785-7D60BCCA5B11@apnic.net>
References: <BY2PR0201MB19107C3B4DD875B1DBC3ADB4843F0@BY2PR0201MB1910.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <38AC04C8-C82F-438F-AFF7-D81AB8E66BB9@apnic.net> <BY2PR0201MB191086ADA3FE52E0E157D93884120@BY2PR0201MB1910.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
To: rtg-ads@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/l7itc-pdcDPThg_1yH1_16XTXfY>
Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org, edwin.mallette@gmail.com, chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com, draft-ietf-pals-mc-pon@tools.ietf.org, jiangyuanlong@huawei.com, dennis.luoyong@huawei.com, pals@ietf.org, Jonathan Hardwick <Jonathan.Hardwick@metaswitch.com>, yshen@juniper.net
Subject: [RTG-DIR] Routing Directorate review of draft-ietf-pals-mc-pon-04
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <rtg-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 01:31:56 -0000

Hello,

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft.
The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related
drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes
on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to
the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate,
please see ​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it
would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last
Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through
discussion or by updating the draft.

Document:draft-ietf-pals-mc-pon-04
Reviewer: Geoff Huston	
Review Date: 16 Aug 2016
IETF LC End Date: ? 
Intended Status: Standards Track

Summary: 

	No issues found. This document is ready for publication.

Comments:

	I am not a subject matter expert on ICCP and PW OAM signalling,
	but within the limitations of my lack of subject matter expertise 
	found the document clear in intent, and the description of the
	four proposed ICC RG parameter types to be clearly documented.  I
	found the document clearly readable both in terms of the
	introductory motivational text and the proposed parameter types
	to be used by ICCP.

Major Issues:

	No major issues found.

Minor Issues:
	No minor issues found.

Nits:
	There are some quibbles over the use of commas, but I'll leave this to the RFC Editor
	when they apply style guidelines to the document

regards,

Geoff Huston

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email