Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req-06

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 10:32:31 -0600

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

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

Document: draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req-06
Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani
Review Date: Jan-21-2014
IETF LC End Date: Unknown
IESG Telechat date: Jan-23-2014

Major: 0
Minor: 0
Nits: 2

This document is ready for publication as an Informational.

The document is ready, most of the nits in the nit-list I had have
been addressed by the IESG during balloting.  That said, the remaining
nits on my list are:

- The requirements in the Security Considerations section (R13 and R14)
  are better put in Section 6 (Ease of Provisioning Requirements), no?
  Is there something intrinsic to do with security on R13 and R14 that
  they are put in the Security Considerations section?  If there is, it
  is not apparent to me.

- Grammar/language: Section 7, Requirement 9:
  s/This gives rise to two/This results in two/
  (Reason: "gives rise to" is probably best left to works of
  fiction :-) )

Thanks,

- vijay
-- 
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA)
Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / [email-masked]
Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/  | Calendar: http://goo.gl/x3Ogq

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 00:19:33 +0200

Thanks for your review and re-review, Vijay. And thanks for the authors for the changes that occurred between the two reviews.

I do agree with Vijay's point about R13 and R14.

Jari