Subject: RE: [PWE3] Oustanding Discusses and comments on draft-ietf-pwe3-i ana-12.txt ( BCP ) -Brian Carpenter

From: "Gray, Eric" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 07:46:41 -0300

Luca,

	You need to include RFC 2119 and BCP 79 in your reference section.

	Easy to forget, being part of the template, rather than part of your
own text...

--
Eric

--> -----Original Message-----
--> From: [email-masked] 
--> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
--> Luca Martini
--> Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 12:09 AM
--> To: [email-masked]
--> Cc: Danny McPherson; pwe3; The IESG; Stewart Bryant
--> Subject: [PWE3] Oustanding Discusses and comments on
--> draft-ietf-pwe3-iana-12.txt ( BCP ) -Brian Carpenter
--> 
--> 
--> Brian,
--> 
--> Thanks you for your very good comments. Please find the 
--> replies in line below.
--> 
--> Luca
--> 
--> 
--> DISCUSSES AND COMMENTS:
--> ======================
--> Brian Carpenter:
--> 
--> Discuss [2005-10-11]:
--> Clarity and imprecision issues
--> (Some from me and some from a Gen-ART review by
--> Joel Halpern.)
--> 
--> LM: Note: I never saw a Gen-ART review. Did an e-mail get lost ?
--> 
--> > 2.1. Pseudowire Type
--> ...
--> >   ...PW Type values 31 through 1024 are to be assigned by IANA,
--> >   using the "Expert Review" policy defined in [RFC2434].
--> 
--> There are multiple calls for Expert Review in this draft
--> and no guidance as to what the Expert will be looking for. This
--> makes it a guessing game - can we have a few guidelines for each 
--> case of Expert Review?
--> 
--> LM: Yes. I did not want to be too restrictive. However I 
--> will add the following:
--> 
--> -----------------------------
--> .Pb "Expert Review Directives"
--> Throughout this document allocation procedures for several 
--> registries call for
--> an expert review process according to [RFC2434]. The expert 
--> should consider
--> the following points:
--> 
--> .Pz *
--> Avoid Duplication of code point allocations.
--> .Pz *
--> A brief clear desctiption of the code point allocation requested.
--> .Pz *
--> Whether the type allocaton requested is appropriate for the 
--> particular
--> requested value range in the registry.
--> .En
--> 
--> The Expert reviewing the request MUST provide an answer, 
--> approving, or
--> disapproving the request within 10 business days from when 
--> the he or she
--> received the expert review request.
--> 
--> -------------------------------------
--> 
--> 
--> >   A Pseudowire Type description of up to 65 characters is 
--> required for
--> >   any assignment from this registry.
--> 
--> I don't believe this length restriction is reasonable. I 
--> believe it is 
--> impossible to give an adequate summary in 65 characters in 
--> every case.
--> On the contrary, I believe there should be a minimum length, no
--> particular maximum length, a requirement to cite a reference, and
--> a requirement to cite a person or company. For the other sections
--> of the document, the length restriction is probably OK, but
--> the citations are needed.
--> 
--> LM: Citing a person/company is no problem. I will also 
--> remove the length restriction for 
--> the pw type allocation, as you requested. 
--> Citing a reference is a little more complicated. However I 
--> will add text to require a reference to a document.
--> 
--> 
--> >   Initial Pseudowire type value allocations are specified below:
--> >
--> >      PW type Description
--> >
--> >      0x0001  Frame Relay DLCI ( Martini Mode )
--> >      0x0002  ATM AAL5 SDU VCC transport
--> ...
--> 
--> These are not self-explanatory. I believe they should all 
--> include citations to wherever they are actually described.
--> 
--> LM: I think that this document is not supposed to be a 
--> glossary for PW types, so it's perfectly fine to have to go lookup
--> other documents that have the same text in the title. For 
--> example, presumably one would first read a PW encapsulation 
--> document, then look up this registry on the IANA web page. 
--> On the other hand , if ones searched for "Frame Relay Pseudowire" 
--> the future RFC describing in great details the frame relay 
--> encapsulation should be easily found.
--> However a reference to the relative document should be included.
--> 
--> 
--> > 2.2. Interface Parameters Sub-TLV type
--> ...
--> >   Any assignments requested from this registry require a 
--> description up
--> >   to 54 characters. Furthermore a length specified as follows:
--> >     - A decimal integer
--> >     - Text as follows:"up to X", where X is a decimal integer
--> >     - Up to 3 different decimal integers.
--> 
--> Does this mean
--> 
-->    The length is specified in one of the following formats:
--> 
--> or something else?
--> 
--> Why is "A decimal integer" listed? It is a subset of "Up to 
--> 3 different decimal
--> integers".
--> Does "up to X" mean "up to and including X"?
--> 
--> Same comments apply to section 2.3.
--> 
--> LM: it means " The length is specified in one of the 
--> following formats "
--> I will fix the text in the hole document.
--> 
-->  
--> Big nit: wherever RFCs are cited they should be proper references,
--> either normative or informative.
--> 
--> LM: I do not understand this comment. The only RFC cited is 
--> Normative. This is clearly indicated in the
--> "normative reference" section.
--> IANA registries do not have a reference section, so I do 
--> know how to put a reference there.
--> 
--> 
--> 
--> _______________________________________________
--> pwe3 mailing list
--> [email-masked]
--> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
--> 

_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3