Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-pce-pcecp-interarea-reqs-05.txt

From: Miguel Garcia <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 14:42:22 +0200

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).

Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-pce-pcecp-interarea-reqs-05.txt
Reviewer: Miguel Garcia <[email-masked]>
Review Date: 2007-03-05
IESG Telechat date: 08 March 2007

Summary: The document is ready for publication as Informational RFC.

Comments: I have only a very subjective comment. In my opinion 
requirements drafts should make an abstraction of the solution and just 
note down the requirements. However, while reading this draft, I got the 
impression that the authors have been thinking quite a lot on the 
solution space, haven't separated them from the solution, and have 
written down a few solutions. Just to illustrate a couple of examples. 
On Section 4.8 the text reads:

    The request message MUST allow for the inclusion of the address of
    the originating PCC.

This is a solution for a requirement. Unfortunately it is not clear to 
me what the requirement is. It is probably something related to the 
"ability of a PCE to apply PCC-specific policies" or something like 
that, where a solution is "to record the address of the PCC in request 
messages, so that the PCE can apply a pcc-specific policy".

Another example in Section 4.4:

    Hence the request message SHOULD allow a request for the
    identification of path segments computed by a PCE, and the response
    message SHOULD allow identifying the path segments computed by each
    PCE.

Well, just an opinion.

/Miguel

-- 
Miguel A. Garcia           tel:+358-50-4804586
Nokia Research Center      Helsinki, Finland

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

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 15:41:29 +0100

I think Miguel is completely correct in principle -
requirements shouldn't include specific protocol elements;
they should describe necessary functionality.

This draft has to fit into a rather precisely defined world
though, so I don't think it can really be made more abstract.
I won't ask for any changes.

      Brian