Subject: Re: draft-ietf-pwe3-fragmentation-07.txt - LAST CALL

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 14:28:43 +0000

Last call has completed with just these comments.

Please could the authors address these, and as soon as 08
gets in the repository, the chairs will send to IESG
and request publication.

Thanks

Stewart

Adrian Farrel wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> 
>>This is the start of two week last call for
>>draft-ietf-pwe3-fragmentation-07.txt.
>>
>>Last call will end Tuesday 7th December 2004
> 
> 
> Some minor comments (nits).
> Apologies for not having followed the evolution of this draft in detail.
> 
> Adrian
> ===
> The expansion of acronyms at first usage seems patchy.
> - PWE3 is used in the abstract and title and should probably be expanded in both those
> places
> - PWE3, PSN and PDU in section 2
> - CE and PE in section 3
> 
> Section 4
>     use fragmentation MUST be provisioned in the sender.
> s/provisioned/configured/
> 
> Section 5.1
>     Deployments MUST avoid a situation which relies upon a combination
>     of IP and PW fragmentation and reassembly on the same node. Such
> I don't believe you can specify this as a MUST in a protocol spec. The best you can do is
> "SHOULD" and probably you ought to use "should".
> 
> Section 5.4.2
>     MRRU (Maximum Reassembled Receive Unit AVP), attribute number TBD2,
>     is the maximum size in octets of a reassembled frame, including any
>     PW framing, but not including the L2TP encapsulation or L2-specific
>     sublayer. Presence of this AVP signifies the ability to receive PW
>     fragments and reassemble them. Packet fragments MUST NOT be sent to
>     an implementation which has not received this value from its peer
>     in a control message.
> Hopefully the confusion is just mine!
> Do you mean...
>     Packet fragments MUST NOT be sent *by*
>     an implementation which has not received this value from its peer
>     in a control message.
> If you do actually mean what you say then some re-wording to stress this might be helpful.
> 
> Section 7
>     This document does not define any new values for IANA to maintain.
> Looks like the subsequent text defines new values for IANA to maintain?
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pwe3 mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
> 
>