Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-19

From: Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 15:36:40 +0000

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<https://rvi.se.ericsson.net/owa/,DanaInfo=mail.internal.ericsson.com,SSL+redir.aspx?C=vCr1L8PWQUqCZeSAn6cKI_Abm6K8vNAI1hJJwcnXe8VAikdG2PcMrstLszaJeAo7bR8W3uA2uu0.&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwiki.tools.ietf.org%2farea%2fgen%2ftrac%2fwiki%2fGenArtfaq>>

Document:                         draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-19

Reviewer:                           Christer Holmberg

Review Date:                     24 November 2013

IETF LC End Date:             27 November 2013

IETF Telechat Date:         N/A

Summary:  The document is well written, but there are some minor editorial nits that the authors may want to consider addressing before publication.

Major Issues: None

Minor Issues: None

Editorial nits:

Abstract:
-----------

Q_A_1:

The first sentence says:

    "There is a requirement for service providers to be able to extend the
       reach of pseudowires (PW) across multiple Packet Switched Network
       domains."

I would suggest to replace that with the sentence you are using later in the Introduction:

     "RFC 5254 describes the service provider requirements for extending
       the reach of pseudowires across multiple Packet Switched Network
       (PSN) domains."

...assuming, of course, that you are referring to the requirements in 5254 :)

Section 1:
------------

Q_1_1:

In the text, and in Figure 1, you use "CE" and "PE" terminology, but they are nowhere extended (e.g. on first occurance). In addition, "CE" is not defined in the document, and it is unclear whether the definition exists in some other document.

Q_1_2:

Should MPLS be extended on first occurance?

Q_1_3:

Should there be a reference to MPLS?

Q_1_4:

There is text saying  "Attachment Identifier (AII)" and later in the document (section 3.2)  "Attachment Identifier (AI)". Please make sure that both "AII" and "AI" are correctly extended (e.g. on first occurance).

Section 2:
------------

Q_2_1:

I suggest to say "This document describes..." rather than "In this document we describe...".

Q_2_2:

Should "LDP" and/or "TLV" be extended on first occurance?

Section 4:
------------

Q_4_1:

Should there be a reference for "Target Attachment Individual Identifier (TAII)"?

Q_4_2:

I would suggest to not use roman numbers in the bullet list in 4.2.3. It will become unclear if you need to reference (in a document, or elsewhere) a specific bullet in the list.

Section 5.1:
--------------

Q_5_1:

I think it would be useful to have a reference, and perhaps an example, or what is meant by "PSN mechanisms".

Q_5_2:

See Q_4_2 regarding usage of roman numbers.

Section 6:
------------

Q_6_1:

There is a sentence saying:

     "However, note that the length MUST be set to 14."

As the sentence contains a MUST, I would suggest to make the sentence more stronger, and remove "note". Perhaps simply something like:

    "The length value MUST be set to 14."

Section 7:

------------

Q_7_1:

The text indicates that the existing protocols may have security issues, but that they are not affected by this document. When I read it, it sounds like you are not very sure whether there are security issues, but you still know that they are not affected :)

I would suggest to re-word the second sentence to something like:

    "The extensions defined in this document do not affect the security issues associated with those protocols."

Section 8:

------------

Q_8_1:

In section 8.1, s/"IANA needs to"/"IANA is requested to"

Q_8_2:

In section 8.2, s/"The IANA is requested to"/"IANA is requested to"

Section 10:

--------------

Q_10_1:

I would suggest to move the paragraph to the beginning of section 11. Something like:

    "11. Acknowledgements

       The editors gratefully acknowledge the following additional co-
       authors of this document:  Mustapha Aissaoui, Nabil Bitar, Mike Loomis, David McDysan,
       Chris Metz, Andy Malis, Jason Rusmeisel, Himanshu Shah, Jeff
       Sugimoto.

       The editors also gratefully acknowledge the input of the following
       people:  Mike Duckett, Paul Doolan, Prayson Pate, Ping Pan, Vasile
       Radoaca, Yeongil Seo, Yetik Serbest, Yuichiro Wada."

Regards,

Christer

---

From: "Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 10:32:55 +0000

Christer

Thank you for your review and comments. Please see below.

Matthew

On 24/11/2013 15:36, "Christer Holmberg" <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>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
><https://rvi.se.ericsson.net/owa/,DanaInfo=mail.internal.ericsson.com,SSL+
>redir.aspx?C=vCr1L8PWQUqCZeSAn6cKI_Abm6K8vNAI1hJJwcnXe8VAikdG2PcMrstLszaJe
>Ao7bR8W3uA2uu0.&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwiki.tools.ietf.org%2farea%2fgen%2ftrac%2
>fwiki%2fGenArtfaq>>
> 
>Summary:  The document is well written, but there are some minor
>editorial nits that the authors may want to consider addressing before
>publication.
> 
>Major Issues: None
> 
>Minor Issues: None
> 
>Editorial nits:
> 
>Abstract:
>-----------
> 
>Q_A_1:
> 
>The first sentence says:
> 

MB> Agreed. I¹ll make that change.

> 
>Section 1:
>------------
> 
>Q_1_1:
> 
>In the text, and in Figure 1, you use "CE" and "PE" terminology, but they
>are nowhere extended (e.g. on first occurance). In addition, "CE" is not
>defined in the
> document, and it is unclear whether the definition exists in some other
>document.

These are well known terms for L2VPNs, but I agree they should be expanded
on first use, regardless. The terminology section states that the
terminology from RFC5659 is used. In addition, RFC5659 references RFC3916
and RFC

>Should MPLS be extended on first occurance?

MB> It¹s a well known term, but I will expand.

>Should there be a reference to MPLS?

MB> I don¹t think so. MPLS is well known and isn¹t even referenced from
RFC5659 and RFC3916 (the MS-PW and PW architectures).

> 
>Q_1_4:
> 
>There is text saying  "Attachment Identifier (AII)" and later in the
>document (section 3.2)  "Attachment Identifier (AI)". Please make sure
>that both "AII" and
> "AI" are correctly extended (e.g. on first occurance).

MB> Agreed. AII should read ŒAttachment Individual Identifier¹. I¹ll
double check these throughout.

>Section 2:

MB> Agreed

>Should "LDP" and/or "TLV" be extended on first occurance?

MB> I will expand LDP, but ŒTLV¹ is so well known that it is used in most
RFCs without expansion.
 
>Section 4:

MB> this is the =same as for SAII (RFC5003). I¹ll add a cross reference
where it is first used.

> 
>Q_4_2:
> 
>I would suggest to not use roman numbers in the bullet list in 4.2.3. It
>will become unclear if you need to reference (in a document, or
>elsewhere) a specific
> bullet in the list.

MB> Why is this any worse than any other method e.g. a,b,cŠ or 1,2,3...?
Wouldn¹t you just say Section 4.2.3, Bullet (ii) ?

>Section 5.1:

MB> I can add an example of this e.g. MPLS Fast Reroute.

>As the sentence contains a MUST, I would suggest to make the sentence
>more stronger, and remove "note". Perhaps simply something like:
> 

MB> OK

> 
>Section 7:
>------------
> 
>Q_7_1:
> 
>The text indicates that the existing protocols may have security issues,
>but that they are not affected by this document. When I read it, it
>sounds like you are not very sure whether
> there are security issues, but you still know that they are not affected
>:)
> 

MB> Agreed, but perhaps ¹security considerations¹ rather than ¹security
issues¹ would be more accurate.

>Section 8:

MB> OK

>In section 8.2, s/"The IANA is requested to"/"IANA is requested to"

MB> OK

>Section 10:

MB> The intent was to explicitly and clearly call out people who
contributed text but were too numerous to list at the top of the draft.
I¹d therefore rather keep these in a separate section.

---

From: Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 11:24:26 +0000

Hi Matthew,

Your suggested ways to address my issues look good. I assumed that some of the terms were well known, but raised the issue just in case :)

The cases where you have a different opinion (e.g. usage of roman numbers) are very minor editorial ones, so no reason spending time arguing about that :)

Regards,

Christer

-----Original Message-----
From: Bocci, Matthew (Matthew) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 27. marraskuuta 2013 12:33
To: Christer Holmberg; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-19

Christer

Matthew

> 
>Section 1:
>------------
> 
>Q_1_1:
> 
>In the text, and in Figure 1, you use "CE" and "PE" terminology, but 
>they are nowhere extended (e.g. on first occurance). In addition, "CE" 
>is not defined in the  document, and it is unclear whether the 
>definition exists in some other document.

These are well known terms for L2VPNs, but I agree they should be expanded on first use, regardless. The terminology section states that the terminology from RFC5659 is used. In addition, RFC5659 references RFC3916 and RFC

>that both "AII" and  "AI" are correctly extended (e.g. on first 
>occurance).

MB> Agreed

>Should "LDP" and/or "TLV" be extended on first occurance?

MB> I will expand LDP, but ŒTLV¹ is so well known that it is used in 
MB> most
RFCs without expansion.

> 
>Q_4_2:
> 
>I would suggest to not use roman numbers in the bullet list in 4.2.3. 
>It will become unclear if you need to reference (in a document, or
>elsewhere) a specific
> bullet in the list.

MB> OK

> 
>Section 7:
>------------
> 
>Q_7_1:
> 
>The text indicates that the existing protocols may have security 
>issues, but that they are not affected by this document. When I read 
>it, it sounds like you are not very sure whether  there are security 
>issues, but you still know that they are not affected
>:)
> 

MB> OK

MB> OK