Subject: [Gen-art] re-review of draft-ietf-pce-monitoring-07.txt

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 17:13:31 +0000

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-pce-monitoring-07.txt
Reviewer: [email-masked]
Review Date: 2010-01-06 (initial 2009-04-22)
IESG Telechat date: 2010-01-07?

Summary: Almost Ready

The version 04 was reviewed, this is about version 07.

Major issues: None

Minor issues: two remaining issues (not yet addressed):

 - footer: Vasseur, et al. -> Vasseur, et all ??

 - 1 page 4: succesful -> successful

 - 4.1 page 14: even if MONITORING object has no optional TLV
  currently defined, the format of these TLVs must be specified.
  I propose the PCEP generic TLV format, RFC 5440 7.1.

 - 4.3 page 17: the variance of time is a squared time. I propose to
  switch to standard deviation (ecart type in French, the square root
  of the variance)

Nits/editorial comments:
 - 1 page 4: PCEP abbrev is introduced after being used

 - 3.1 page 8: Section 4.2.) -> Section 4.2)
  (not yet fixed?)

 - 3.2 page 11: RP origin is already in 3.1 page 8

 - 4.1 page 13: IMHO the wording of the I (Incomplete) bit description can
  be easily improved: you need to 6 page 18 to fully understand it

 - 4.1 page 13: choose between Monitoring-id-number and monitoring-id-number 
  (not yet fixed, usually you should use one and only one spelling for
   a protocol element name)

Bonne année !

[email-masked]

PS: *please* fix the variance unit issue!