Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-pwe3-aii-aggregate-02

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 14:35:21 +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 resolve these comments along with any other Last Call 
comments you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-pwe3-aii-aggregate-02
Reviewer: Pasi Eronen
Review Date: 2007-03-17
IETF LC End Date: 2007-03-30
IESG Telechat date: (not known yet)

Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits
that should be fixed before publication.

Comments:

1) As the PROTO write-up already pointed out, the current version
has a normative downward reference to draft-ietf-l3vpn-bgpvpn-auto.
To me it seems this might be changed to informative reference,
but probably someone more familiar with the protocol(s) should
also confirm this.

2) In Section 3.2 the document uses the phrases like "the AC ID is
NULL" to mean that that "AC ID" field is not included in the message
at all. I found this a bit confusing; probably something like "the AC
ID field is omitted" would be clearer?

3) Section 3.2, "If the global ID is derived from a 2-octet AS 
number, then the high-order 4 octets of this 4 octet field MUST 
be set to zero." Should this be "...the high-order 2 octets..."?

4) The document uses RFC 2119 keywords, but does not include
RFC 2119 in the references list.

Best regards,
Pasi

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

---

From: Danny McPherson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 08:03:55 -0600

Pasi et al,
Good feedback as usual from the gen-art folk, thanks!

Comments inline, primarily for the draft editors.  I don't believe
there's anything significant here that can't be addressed in
RFC Editor comments.

> but probably someone more familiar with the protocol(s) should

Yep.

> ID field is omitted" would be clearer?

Yes, and tightening up the corresponding text in the final
bullet of section 3.2.

> be set to zero." Should this be "...the high-order 2 octets..."?

Yes, I believe so..

> RFC 2119 in the references list.

Indeed..

-danny