Subject: [Gen-art] gen-art review of draft-ietf-pwe3-ms-pw-arch-06.txt

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 11:08:12 -0400

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-pwe3-ms-pw-arch-06.txt
Reviewer: Scott Brim
Review Date:
IETF LC End Date: 2009-06-16
IESG Telechat date: (if known)

Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an informational RFC.

Major issues:

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments:

- In this one paragraph:

    Note that although Figure 4 only shows a single S-PE, a PW may
    transit more one S-PE along its path. This architecture is
    applicable when the S-PEs are statically chosen, or when they are
    chosen using a dynamic path selection mechanism. Both directions
    of an MS-PW must traverse the same set of S-PEs on a reciprocal
    path.  Note that although the S-PE path is therefore reciprocal,
    the path taken by the PSN tunnels between the T-PEs and S-PEs may
    not be reciprocal due to choices made by the PSN routing protocol. 

  ... "reciprocal" is used, but nowhere else in the document.  Should
  it be "bi-directional" (used elsewhere)?

- 15.1 "References" should be "Normative References"

Scott

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 22:41:17 +0100

Scott
>   it be "bi-directional" (used elsewhere)?
I am not sure.

In propagation and navigation a reciprocal path is the exact reverse of 
the outward path,
and that is exactly what we want to say. I this context it is also 
bidirectional.

> - 15.1 "References" should be "Normative References"
We will split the list tomorrow.

Stewart

---

From: "BOCCI Matthew" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 16:40:55 +0200

Scott,

Many thanks for your review.

> -----Original Message-----

[snip]

>   it be "bi-directional" (used elsewhere)?

We mean 'reciprocal' here rather than bidirectional. This section uses
the term reciprocal to refer to the corresponding, but opposite
directions of a PW. Thus we are using the navigational definition of the
term.

> - 15.1 "References" should be "Normative References"

Actually I think we need to split the references properly into normative
and informative references. Since this is also an informational draft,
it is also inappropriate to cite RFC2119. The editors therefore propose
rearranging the references as follows:

15. References
15.1. Normative References
[1]	Bryant, S. and Pate, P. (Editors), "Pseudo Wire Emulation
Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Architecture", RFC 3985, March 2005
[2]	Andersson, L. and Madsen, T., "Provider Provisioned Virtual
Private Network (VPN) Terminology", RFC 4026, March 2005
[3]	Rosen, E. Viswanathan, A. and Callon, R., "Multiprotocol Label
Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001
[4]	Malis, A. and Townsley, M., "Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge
(PWE3) Fragmentation and Reassembly", RFC 4623, August 2006

15.2. Informative References

[5]	Martini, L. Bitar, N. and Bocci, M (Editors), "Requirements for
Multi-Segment Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3)", RFC 5254,
October 2008 
[6]	Bryant, S. & Andersson, L. "JWT Report on MPLS Architectural
Considerations for a Transport profile", RFC 5317, February 2009

Also, in removing the RFC2119 citation we spotted one MUST that is
inappropriate for this informational draft, and removed the 'conventions
used in this document' section. The inappropriate MUST is in section 1.3
bullet 3, where we propose the following change:

OLD:
o	Multi-Segment Pseudowire (MS-PW).  A static or dynamically
configured set of two or more contiguous PW segments that behave and
function as a single point-to-point PW. Each end of a MS-PW by
definition MUST terminate on a T-PE.

NEW:
o	Multi-Segment Pseudowire (MS-PW).  A static or dynamically
configured set of two or more contiguous PW segments that behave and
function as a single point-to-point PW. Each end of a MS-PW by
definition terminates on a T-PE.

Best regards

Matthew

> 
> 
> Scott
> _______________________________________________
> pwe3 mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 10:52:12 -0400

While I completely agree with Matthew's edits, do informative RFCs
normally have normative references? None of the text is normative ....

Cheers,
Andy

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 16:11:37 +0100

> normally have normative references? None of the text is normative ....
That was my first reaction when I saw Scott's comment, but we
(the editors) looked for a definitive guide and could not find one.
RFC3985 has the two classes of reference.

Stewart

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 11:23:57 -0400

Stewart,

I guess following precedent is the path of least resistance.

Cheers,
Andy

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 11:37:48 -0400

> Many thanks for your review.

Matthew and all: Thanks for your excellent handling of this.  I'm very
happy.