Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-gach-gal-05.txt

From: "Miguel A. Garcia" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 11:52:16 +0200

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-mpls-tp-gach-gal-05.txt
Reviewer: Miguel Garcia <[email-masked]>
Review Date: 20-May-2005
IESG Telechat date:

Summary: The document is ready for publication as a standards track RFC.
I reviewed version -04 of this document, and I had a number of minor 
comments. Most of them have been solved, but still I need to comment on a 
few remaining minor issues.

Minor issues:

- Rule of 5 authors. The draft lists 6 authors, of which 2 of them are 
listed as Editors. While this is not an impediment for its publication, 
certainly it brakes the RFC Editor's rule of 5 authors.

- In version 4 I had this comment:
   On Section 3.1, first paragraph, the text reads:

     The structure of ACH TLVs that
     MAY follow an ACH TLV Header is defined and described in the
     following sections.

I am not sure what the text wants to say, because it mean want to say either:

a) The structure of ACH TLVs MAY follow an ACH TLV Header ...
b) The structure of ACH TLVs that can follow an ACH TLV Header ..

If the intention is a), then this text should be written in Section 3.3,
which is the section that describes the ACH TLV object. If the intention
is b), then it is correctly placed, but please do use "can" instead of "MAY".

The authors clarified that the intention was to express "a". Now in 
version 5, the text has been moved to Section 3.3, which is the correct 
Section. However, I still have a problem with the wording "that MAY", 
because I think it will cause confussion. The text is a restrictive 
relative clause. I don't understand how normative text MAY can be 
included in a restrictive relative clause, whose purpose is to restrict 
the set of ACH TLVs to only those who follow the ACH TLV header. I will 
argue that, as written, is unimplementable.

So, I suspect that you are trying to say the following (please review 
carefully):

"ACH TLVs MAY follow an ACH TLV header. The structure of ACH TLVs that 
follow an ACH TLV Header is defined and described in this section."

In the above paragraph, the first sentence express the optionality of ACH 
TLVs to follow or not an ACH TLV header. The second sentence says that 
the rest of the section is devoted only to the subset of those ACH TLVs 
that follow an ACH TLV header. Nothing is said about ACH TLVs that do not 
follow an ACH TLV header.

- New issue: there is a note at the end of Section 4.2.1.1. 
Unfortunately, the note contains a normative statement (MUST). Normative 
statements are incompatible with the definition of a note, which merely 
adds some additional explanation to the text. I would suggest move the 
sentence of the note that contains the normative statement outside the 
note, in which case there might be a need for some introductory text.

- Typo in Section 4.2.1.2: s/MPLSsection/MPLS section

/Miguel

-- 
Miguel A. Garcia
+34-91-339-3608
Ericsson Spain

---

From: "BOCCI Matthew" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 12:11:26 +0200

Miguel,

Please see below.

Thanks 

Matthew

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Miguel A. Garcia [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 20 May 2009 10:52
> To: BOCCI Matthew; VIGOUREUX MARTIN; [email-masked];
[email-masked];
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Loa Andersson;
> [email-masked]
> Cc: General Area Review Team; [email-masked]
> Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-gach-gal-05.txt
> 

I'm waiting for guidance from Loa and Adrian on this one.
> follow an ACH TLV header.

What we are trying to say is the following. ACH TLVs may or may not
exist in a G-Ach. If they exist, ACH TLVs may only be placed after an
ACH TLV header. The structure of ACH TLVs is as follows...

So I think a slight modification to your proposed sentence clarifies the
point:

"ACH TLVs MAY follow an ACH TLV header. The structure of ACH TLVs is
defined and described in this section."
 
> note, in which case there might be a need for some introductory text.

In retrospect, I am not sure that I am comfortable with this sentence
either. The preceding sentence says "If this is not the targeted
destination, but the node has agreed to process packets on that ACH
channel, then the processing applied to the packet is out of scope of
this document." I think that the specifications for the individual
protocols that run in the G-ACh should say what to do next, so I would
prefer to remove the final sentence entirely.

> - Typo in Section 4.2.1.2: s/MPLSsection/MPLS section

OK thanks

---

From: "Miguel A. Garcia" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 12:16:23 +0200

Hi Matthew:

I am fine with all your explanations. Please seek guidance from your 
shepherd or AD with respect to the next steps.

      Miguel

-- 
Miguel A. Garcia
+34-91-339-3608
Ericsson Spain

---

From: Adrian Farrel <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 12:06:30 +0100

Hi,

>> listed as Editors. While this is not an impediment for its
>> publication, certainly it brakes the RFC Editor's rule of 5 authors.
>

I thought I sent this.

Document header...
M. Bocci, Ed.
M. Vigoureux, Ed.

Merge sections 7 and 8 to read...

   The editors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of Sami Boutros,
   Italo Busi, Marc Lasserre, Lieven Levrau and Siva Sivabalan

   The authors would like to thank Malcolm Betts, ITU-T Study Group 15,
   and all members of the teams (the Joint Working Team, the MPLS
   Interoperability Design Team in IETF and the MPLS-TP Ad-Hoc Team in
   ITU-T) involved in the definition and specification of the MPLS
   Transport Profile.

New section Editors' Addresses...
M. Bocci, Ed.
M. Vigoureux, Ed.

Authors' Addresses...
George Swallow
David Ward
Stewart Bryant
Rahul Aggarwal

Cheers,
Adrian