Subject: [Gen-art] Fwd: Gen-art last call review: draft-ietf-pce-vendor-constraints-11

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 15:08:14 -0600

missed copying gen-art

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Gen-art last call review: draft-ietf-pce-vendor-constraints-11
Date: 	Tue, 26 Nov 2013 14:57:45 -0600
From: 	Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
To: 	[email-masked], [email-masked]

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-pce-vendor-constraints-11
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 26 Nov 2013
IETF LC End Date: 9 Dec 2013
IESG Telechat date: not yet scheduled

Summary: Ready (but I have a couple of comments for consideration)

Given a quick scan of the list history for this document, I'm surprised
there's not more discussion about the potential for creating islands of
non-interoperable equipment, and some recommendation for when to define
and how to deploy a standard version of a constraint when a common thing
is found among vendor specific variants of the constraint (are there
implications if an element include both the standard and vendor specific
variants?)

This is probably bigger than this document, and take it for what it's
worth, but the practice of relisting the definition of <svec-list> when
you add objects doesn't seem to be working well. For instance, had XRO
or GC been defined later, you're probably ok with them being used with
these objects too, right? As it is, I'm having a hard time seeing the
value in redefining the grammar this way each time you add a new thing.
It leads to odd artifacts like _this_ document not providing a good
reference to what XRO and GC are (you have to chase through the
registry, or look at 5557 or 5521, neither of which are referenced here.