Subject: AD evaluation of: draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-mam-01.txt

From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:15:36 +0100

Here are my review comments:

More or less serious:

- I believe that not the base protocol document should request 
  assignment of a BC Model ID, but instead this document should
  do so.

Nits/admin

- tell RFC-editor to remove the section about SUB-IP related
  information. Or better remove it in next revision.

- If we decide that this doc requests assignment of BC Model ID
  (which is my preference) then we need an IANA Considerations 
  section.

- Although an IPR statement (RFC2026, sect 10) is not mandatory, it would
  be good to add one. Certainly if we plan to move one or more
  of the BC models to stds track in the future.

- Try to be consistent with the base protocol spec in that you use the
  same capitalization/spelling for "Bandwidth Contraints Model".
  There are possibly other such strings/prhases as well that could
  benefit from more consistency.

Thanks,
Bert