Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-svec-list-04.txt

From: "Miguel A. Garcia" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 10:29:42 +0100

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-pcep-svec-list-04.txt
Reviewer: Miguel Garcia <[email-masked]>
Review Date:
IETF LC End Date: 2010-03-08
IESG Telechat date: 2010-03-11
Summary: The document is ready for publication as an Informational RFC.

Major issues:

Minor issues:

- I noticed that the draft, although it uses normative verbs, they are 
all written in lower case. Additionally, there is no dependency to RFC 
2119. I guess this is done on purpose because the draft is Informational. 
Is this the intention?

In the past the IETF has created Informational RFCs that contain 
normative text written in dependency with RFC 2119. I am not sure if 
there is a directive to change that way of working now.

Nits/editorial comments:

- Expand acronyms at their first occurrence. This includes: SRLG, BRPC.

- Section 5.2, first sentence in the 2nd paragraph. I guess the sentence 
looks incomplete. At least, it looks like an introductory part, but there 
is no consequence:

    If a PCC sends path computation requests to a PCE and then sends
    another path computation requests, which are dependent on the first
    requests and has been associated by using a SVEC list.

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

---

From: Adrian Farrel <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 13:34:32 +0000

Thanks Miguel!

> Minor issues:
>
> - I noticed that the draft, although it uses normative verbs, they are all 
> written in lower case. Additionally, there is no dependency to RFC 2119. I 
> guess this is done on purpose because the draft is Informational. Is this 
> the intention?
>
> In the past the IETF has created Informational RFCs that contain normative 
> text written in dependency with RFC 2119. I am not sure if there is a 
> directive to change that way of working now.

I don't think it is a directive so much as a correct reading of RFC 2119 and 
its purpose.

I think some Informational RFCs use 2119-like language in order to highlight 
requirements, but I think the usage here is correct.

> - Expand acronyms at their first occurrence. This includes: SRLG, BRPC.

Yup. We''l do that if there is a respin.

>    requests and has been associated by using a SVEC list.

Yes. This looks broken.

Authors, please send me the fixed text for me to include in an RFC Editor 
note.

Thanks,
Adrian