Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pim-rpf-vector-06

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 16:56:07 -0600

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
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.

Document: draft-ietf-pim-rpf-vector-06
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date:  2008-11-05
IETF LC End Date: 2008-11-13

Summary:

This draft is almost ready for publication. I have a few fairly minor  
concerns that I think should be addressed prior to publication, and  
some editorial nits.

Substantive Comments:

-- It is not clear to me why this is to be an informational RFC. It  
seems to be defining protocol. If that protocol is not intended to be  
a standard, then it would help to have an applicability statement to  
that effect.

-- Section 4:

The IANA considerations section needs a little more information. Is  
this attribute to be added to an existing registry? Is a new registry  
needed?

-- Section 5:

The security considerations section implies that adding this new  
Vector creates no new security considerations beyond those in RFC4601.  
I am not qualified to hold an opinion whether this is true or not--has  
the working group explicitly thought about it?

Editorial Comments:

-- IDNITS reports that there is no RFC 2119 reference or boilerplate,  
but there is at least one use of normative language (2.3.4).

-- There are a number of acronyms that should be expanded on first  
use. I would not worry about expanding acronyms that are well known to  
the entire IETF community (e.g. TCP), but acronyms that are not widely  
known outside the BGP community probably should be.

-- Section 2, first sentence:

Who is the "we" in this context? A edge router? (This is not a  
complaint about 2nd person language in general so much as a concern  
about the actor being obscured.)  The pattern of saying "we" or "our"  
referring to a network element taking some particular action occurs a  
few more times in the document. It would be better to simply name the  
element.

-- Section 2.3.4, first paragraph:

s/depending/dependent

-- IDNITS reports that the reference to draft-ietf-pim-join- 
attributes-03 is outdated. There is an 06 as of the time of this review.
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art