Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-art review of draft-ietf-iptel-tgrep-08.txt

From: "Sharon Chisholm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 20:26:53 -0500

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 resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: A Telephony Gateway Registration Protocol (TGREP)
Summary: This document is ready for publication, but has the following
nits that should be resolved.

Comments
---------

1. In section 1, in the definition of a trunk, replace "In a network, a
communication path connecting " with 'In a network, a trunk is a
communication path connecting". 

2. In section 2, first sentence, replace "has already gone through TRIP
[2]" with "is familiar with TRIP [2]"

3. In a number of sections there seems to be confusion between use of
'that' and 'which'. ('That' should used to disambiguate. The car that is
yellow. My car, which I drove to the ski hill.). Places include: section
3, first paragraph, 4th sentence; section 7, first paragraph; section
7.2, first sentence

4. In section 3, first paragraph, 4th sentence, replace with "A TGREP
Receiver is defined, which receives this information and optionally
performs operations like consolidation and aggregation, hands over the
reachability information to a TRIP Location Server." [Note I did not
touch the that/which portion. I only moved the word 'optionally' around
a bit because the original sentence suggested that step three was after
optionally doing something, which was a bit awkward.]

5. In section 4, fourth paragraph, first sentence, replace "using the
procedures similar to session establishment in TRIP" with "using a
procedure similar to session establishment in TRIP"

6. In section 4, fourth paragraph, second sentence, replace "After the
session establishment the TGREP " with "After the session establishment,
the TGREP ".

7. In section 4.3.1, in discussion of the callSuccess, there is no
discussion about counter wrapping or learning what the window is
associated with the number. This is generally applicable to any other
statistic-like numbers.

8. In section 4.4.1, I got a bit confused about the length bit. Is there
an overall length count or just one associated with each prefix? The
figure shows the latter. If this is the case, is it the length
associated with the first prefix that we talk about in the second
paragraph 'The presence of Prefix Attribute with the length field of the
attribute as 0 ". If so, could I then put a second parameter in there
with a non-zero length and if so, what would that mean?

9. In section 5, in the bullets, third bullet, this really needs be
reworded since the other bullets are all about the benefits and this one
starts out with "Gateways can get really large". Suggest starting with
something more along the lines of "enables scalability ...."

10. In section 5.1, the text "The codes for the new address families
will be allocated by IANA." should probably be flagged for deletion by
the RFC editor.

11. In section 5.1, page 19, first paragraph, replace "The Application
Protocol field is same as the" with "The Application Protocol field is
the same as the "

12. In section 5.1, page 19, fifth paragraph, the word hierarchical is
spelt wrong.

13. In section 6, the term 'gateway' is used instead of GW. This seems
inconsistent, but I actually prefer gateway. Or was this meant to mean
something different?

14. In section 6.4, replace "The same procedures used with TRIP, are
used with TGREP " with 'The same procedures used with TRIP are used with
TGREP".

15. In section 6.4, it says "The only difference is that a TGREP gateway
will never generate a NOTIFICATION message in response to an UPDATE
message" and "Any UPDATE message is silently discarded." But this
doesn't match. I expect that the update response involves receiving,
taking action and sending a NOTIFICTION. Does the TGREP message take any
action? If not, then there is a bigger difference then not generating
the NOTIFICATION.

16. In section 6.7, replace "TGREP should specify it's choice" with
"TGREP should specify its choice"

17. In section 7.1, second paragraph says "the the Carrier"

18. In section 7.1,  replace "In general, there is a potential for loss
of gateway routing information, when TGREP routes from a set of gateways
are not consolidated when a candidate route is presented to the TRIP LS"
with "In general, there is a potential for loss of gateway routing
information when TGREP routes from a set of gateways are not
consolidated when a candidate route is presented to the TRIP LS"

19. Isn't the information in section 7.3 a complete repeat of what is in
section 3?

Sharon Chisholm
Nortel 
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada

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