Subject: [Teas] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-scaling-rec-07: (with COMMENT)

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 18:17:37 -0700

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-scaling-rec-07: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-scaling-rec/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[Note: The authors revised this draft between the time I reviewed it and
transcribed my notes. This is a review of version 06. I will not have time to
re-review 07 prior to the telechat to see if my comments still apply.]

Substantive:

- General: I agree with the "major issues" comments from Elwyn's Gen-ART review.

- General: There's a fair amount of 2119 language in this draft that refers to
options in prior RFCs. It's not clear which of those are new normative
requirements vs restatements of existing requirements. In the former case, this
draft would need to update those respective RFCs. In the latter case, this
draft should use descriptive language rather than 2119 keywords (unless in the
form of direct quotes.)

-1, last paragraph: "In order to reap maximum scaling benefits, it is
   strongly RECOMMENDED that implementations support both the
   techniques."

That statement seems to require updating ... something. Maybe 3209 or 2961?

-2.1.3, 2nd paragraph: Does this update RFC 2961?  Or if not, is the normative
language appropriate here?

-2.2, bullet list: Are these new normative requirements or restatements of
existing ones?

-6: "This document does not introduce new security issues."
Please document the reasoning behind that statement.

Editorial:

-2.1, section title: Why the quotes?

-2.2, first bullet: Section 1 already normatively states these. This text
effectively says "MUST follow the MUSTs...". (Note that this pattern recurs in
several places.)

-2.3, first paragraph: "The set of recommendations discussed in this section..."
As written, many of those are requirements rather than recommendations.

---

From: Vishnu Pavan Beeram <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 23:49:39 -0400

Ben, Hi!

Thanks for the review. We just posted a new revision (-07) to address the
Gen-Art review comments. Please go through the new diffs (
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-scaling-rec-07)
and let us know if the new narrative addresses all of your concerns.

Regards,
-Pavan

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 9:17 PM, Ben Campbell <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> Teas mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>