Subject: [Gen-art] Gen ART review of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec-03.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 11:59:56 -0400

Lou,

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec-03.txt .

For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other
Last Call comments you may receive.

This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits
that should be fixed before publication.

The draft is generally well-written and to the point.  All
of these comments are minor.
- Section 3.1.  Say why the two-leading-one-bits form is used
	for ALARM_SPEC objects in this section in addition to
	Section 3.1.4.  It would be ok to move the text from Section
	3.1.4 up into Section 3.1.  Also, if there's a good explanation
	for why C-Type 1 and 2 are Reserved, that explanation should
	be added.
- Section 3.1.1 should give guidance for and examples of appropriate
	use of Severity values.
- Section 3.1.2 has a number of SHOULDs and SHOULD NOTs.  There needs
	to be an explanation of why these strong recommendations are
	being made (which would imply consequences of not following
	the recommendations) and/or a description of what goes wrong
	when they're not followed.  The overall explanation appears
	to be a desire to supply enough basic information to allow
	the recipient to understand the alarm (this info can be quite
	important as the recipient may be dealing with a crisis of
	which the alarm is a part).  The "MAY" for the ref
	count TLV needs to be explained  (why would it be used?).
- Section 3.1.2 on p10 discusses adding alarm objects to the
	"state of LSPs".  The quoted phrase needs to be defined -
	I think the addition is to the LSP state communicated by
	RSVP Path and Resv messages.

Thanks,
--David
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Senior Technologist
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
[email-masked]        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 18:04:39 +0100

Forwarding to Lou's new email address.

Adrian
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; 
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 4:59 PM
Subject: Gen ART review of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec-03.txt

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 09:23:13 -0400

Adrian,
         Thanks for the redirect.

David,
         Much thanks for the comments.  I'll review this tomorrow and 
follow up if I have any questions/issues to discuss.  (If not, I'll 
just update and submit the draft.)

Lou

At 01:04 PM 8/9/2006, Adrian Farrel wrote:

>----- Original Message ----- From: <[email-masked]>
>Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; 
><[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 18:01:09 -0400

David,
         Much thanks for the comments.  Please see below for in-line responses.
Note, the other co-authors on this draft have been included in this response.

Lou

>>3.1.4 up into Section 3.1.

I've added a forward reference to 3.1.  Note that this comment will 
be removed once IANA assigns the class number.

>>Also, if there's a good explanation

sure.

>>- Section 3.1.1 should give guidance for and examples of appropriate

There's a whole body of work on this, and for this reason the 
document provides a reference to an RFC that already discusses this 
topic.  I think the current text ("See [RFC3877] for more information 
on severity.") is the best and right about of guidance in this 
document.  If you have specific alternative text, we'd be happy to 
consider its inclusion.

>>when they're not followed.

I'm not sure I agree with this point, but will add some text nevertheless.

>>The overall explanation appears
>>which the alarm is a part).

will cover this in the updated text.

>>The "MAY" for the ref

This is explained earlier in the document, but sure will add something.

>>RSVP Path and Resv messages.

so there seems to be a few points here:

point 1:  clarify which stats are referred to by "state of LSPs".

Per your comment, I've changed this to read "Path and Resv states of LSPs".

point 2 and 3: define the quoted phrases: "alarm communication 
inhibited state." and "administratively down" .

These phrase are defined in the last sentence of the paragraph:
     These states are indicated by the I and A bits of the
     Admin_Status object, see Section 3.2.

Thanks again for the feedback!

Lou

PS in case you're interested there's a "preview" copy of the updated 
text attached.

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2006 14:28:29 +0100

Hi,

<hat = (chair and co-author)>
Thanks for the changes
</hat>

<hat = co-author>
Can we take this opportunity to update the references?

OLD
[GMPLS-UNI] Swallow, G., Drake, J., Ishimatsu, H., and Rekhter, Y.
            "GMPLS UNI: RSVP Support for the Overlay Model",
            draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-overlay-05.txt, October 2004,
            work in progress.

[GMPLS-ENNI] Papadimitriou, D., Editor,  "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS)
             RSVP-TE Signaling in support of Automatically Switched
             Optical Network (ASON)",
             draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-rsvp-te-ason-04.txt, July 2005,
             work in progress.

NEW
[GMPLS-OVERLAY] Swallow, G., Drake, J., Ishimatsu, H., and Rekhter, Y.
            "Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
             User-Network Interface (UNI): Resource ReserVation
             Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Support for the
             Overlay Model", RFC 4208, October 2005.

</hat>

Thanks,
Adrian

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Lou Berger" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; "Lou Berger" 
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; 
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; 
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 11:01 PM
Subject: Re: Gen ART review of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec-03.txt