Subject: [Gen-art] draft-ietf-pce-p2mp-req-04.txt

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 15:26:39 +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-p2mp-req-04.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 2010-01-22
IETF LC End Date: 2010-01-29
IESG Telechat date: unknown

Summary: Ready

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments:
 - in 1 page 2: in theory you should expend the VPN abbrev (it is not
  in http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-style-guide/abbrev.expansion.txt
  marked as well known even IMHO it should, so the "in theory")

 - 2.1.4 page 3: "unprocessable" is not in my dictonary
  (but it is known by google :-)

 - 2.1.9 page 5: (wording) it MUST be possible -> it MUST be allowed
  (IMHO the word "possible" doesn't go with a MUST)

 - BTW there are a lot of "it is ...". I am not convince it is
  a good wording in English (it is in French so I am half very used
  to see this and half prevented against this "gallicism"...)

 - 5 page 9: (question) for instance the R3/2.1.3 reason code
 is not here because it is defined in another document, isn't it?
 BTW if this document is draft-ietf-pce-pcep-p2mp-extensions-06.txt
 why is it not cited?

 - 7.1 page 9: PCE-P2MP-APP was published as RFC 5671

Regards

[email-masked]

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 16:06:54 -0000

Thanks Francis,

> Summary: Ready

Good to know.

>  marked as well known even IMHO it should, so the "in theory")

Yup

>  (but it is known by google :-)

I'll let the RFC Editor worry.

>  (IMHO the word "possible" doesn't go with a MUST)

I think the philosophy taught in French and English schools differs on this 
point :-)

This document is describing the requirements to be applied to the protocol 
spec.
The solution must make it possible to do this.

I'll let the RFC Editor correct this if it is wrong.

>  to see this and half prevented against this "gallicism"...)

Be convinced!

> BTW if this document is draft-ietf-pce-pcep-p2mp-extensions-06.txt

You are correct in the document you cross-reference.
But the reason it is not specified here is because this is a requirements 
document not a protocol spec.

> - 7.1 page 9: PCE-P2MP-APP was published as RFC 5671

Yup

Thanks again,
Adrian