Subject: [Teas] Some comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-availability-extension-02

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2015 12:20:43 -0400

Hi,
    I reviewed this document from the perspective of how generalized it
is in its current form.  I think it does apply to multiple technology
and is close to ready for a joint last call, but do have a few comments:

Abstract:
- States applies to PSC

Sections 1
- (general comment) informative sections such as Intro and Overview
shouldn't contain normative (RFC2119) language.  See
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/teas/trac/wiki/PSGuidelines for some
suggested guidelines.

Section 2
- You mention "by the PE node" (and in two other places in the
document).  I have don't understand why "PE" is being introduced. 
Perhaps you mean simply "a node"?

Section 3.1
- You duplicate a format definition from RFC4203.  I think this should
be replaced with a simple sentence stating that "The Interface Switching
Capacity Descriptor (ISCD) sub-TLV is defined in Section 1.4 of [RFC 4203]".

- More significantly you are actually changing its format, and in
particular taking 8 bits from the existing reserved field:

      A new AI field is defined in this document.

- Taking bits from the reserved field is a major change and needs to be
justified.  The purpose *and the use* of this new field, Availability
Index, is unclear in the document.  It needs to be, or better yet, drop it.

Section 3.2:
- Why limit Availability information to PSC and LSC?

Section 6.1
- A number of references listed as Normative are not required to
implement the mechanisms in the document and therefore should be
identified as Informative.

I look forward to your responses.
Thanks,
Lou