Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-info-03

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 14:12:10 -0500

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-info-03
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2012-06-14
IETF LC End Date: 2012-06-14

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

Major issues:

None

Minor issues:

None

Nits/editorial comments:

-- 2.1, 1st paragraph:

Please expand RSVP-TE on first mention.

-- 2.1, 2nd paragraph: "...can take place independent from..."

s/independent/independently

-- 2.2, paragraph 5: "... definition of the Association ID, which is (quoting [RFC4872]):"

The quoted text this refers to is more of a description of use than a definition.

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 20:44:19 +0100

Thanks Ben.

All entered as RFC Editor notes except the last one...

> The quoted text this refers to is more of a description of use than a
definition.

I agree, but don't think any change is needed. The full text here is...

   They
   also share the same definition of the Association ID, which is
   (quoting [RFC4872]):

      "The Association ID MUST be set to the LSP ID of the LSP being
      protected by this LSP or the LSP protecting this LSP.  If unknown,
      this value is set to its own signaled LSP ID value (default).
      Also, the value of the Association ID MAY change during the
      lifetime of the LSP."

Thus "which is" means "and here is a description".

If you feel really strongly we can probably work something out. 

A

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 14:52:22 -0500

> If you feel really strongly we can probably work something out. 

No problem at all. It was pedantic enough that I almost didn't include it :-)