Subject: gen-art review of draft-ietf-pwe3-ms-pw-arch-06.txt

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 11:08:12 -0400

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-pwe3-ms-pw-arch-06.txt
Reviewer: Scott Brim
Review Date:
IETF LC End Date: 2009-06-16
IESG Telechat date: (if known)

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

Major issues:

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments:

- In this one paragraph:

    Note that although Figure 4 only shows a single S-PE, a PW may
    transit more one S-PE along its path. This architecture is
    applicable when the S-PEs are statically chosen, or when they are
    chosen using a dynamic path selection mechanism. Both directions
    of an MS-PW must traverse the same set of S-PEs on a reciprocal
    path.  Note that although the S-PE path is therefore reciprocal,
    the path taken by the PSN tunnels between the T-PEs and S-PEs may
    not be reciprocal due to choices made by the PSN routing protocol. 

  ... "reciprocal" is used, but nowhere else in the document.  Should
  it be "bi-directional" (used elsewhere)?

- 15.1 "References" should be "Normative References"

Scott

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 22:41:17 +0100

Scott
>   it be "bi-directional" (used elsewhere)?
I am not sure.

In propagation and navigation a reciprocal path is the exact reverse of 
the outward path,
and that is exactly what we want to say. I this context it is also 
bidirectional.

> - 15.1 "References" should be "Normative References"
We will split the list tomorrow.

Stewart