Subject: [Gen-art] A *new* batch of IETF LC reviews - 24 Sept 2009

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:08:12 -0500

Hi all,
 
Here's the link to the new LC assignments for this week: 
http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-090924-lc.html

The assignments are captured in the spreadsheets: 
http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/gen-art.html 
http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/gen-art-by-reviewer.html 

The standard template is included below. 
Thanks, 
Mary. 

------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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: 
Reviewer: 
Review Date: 
IETF LC End Date: 
IESG Telechat date: (if known) 

Summary: 

Major issues: 

Minor issues: 

Nits/editorial comments:

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:28:03 -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 ).

Document: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-nm-req-05.txt
	MPLS TP Network Management Requirements
Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern
Review Date: 25-Sept-2009
IETF LC End Date: 4-Oct-2009
IESG Telechat date: 8-Oct-2009

Summary: This document is probably ready for publication as a Proposed 
Standard

Major issues: None

Minor issues:
Is it reasonable for the references in the sentence:
    In writing this document, the authors assume the reader is
    familiar with references [12] and [15].
to be informational references?  One of the definitions of normative I 
have seen is "you have to have read that to correctly understand this" 
which seems to be what the sentence says.

It is slightly unclear how it is anticipated this document will be used. 
  If it is expected that the document will be cited in other (solution 
or architecture) documents, which are explaining how they meet these 
requirements, then there are two loosely related issues:
1) There is some descriptive text which may be intended to also be 
providing requirements.
2) The actual requirements are not named or numbered, so it will be 
difficult for any other document to say "we provide A-Q, but we do not 
provide R for this reason ..."
I understand that it may be too late to actually change this, and that 
the intended usage may be such that these two are non-issues, but I 
would appreciate clarification.

Nits/editorial comments: