Subject: RE: [PWE3] draft-ietf-pwe3-ms-pw-requirements-01.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 14:00:49 -0000

Stewart, Editors,

[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> wrote:
> It's quite some time since anyone commented on:
> 
> Requirements for inter domain Pseudo-Wires
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pwe3-ms-pw-requ
> irements-01.txt 

Some small editorial comments...

Section 3.2, paragraph 3: states "This document requires support for
MS-PWs with segments of the same type." is this what is really meant?
Or do you mean "This document specifies requirements for MS-PWs with
segments of the same type."?

Section 5, bullet -ii: states "At minimum, a direct PW control", change
'At minimum' to 'At a minimum'.

Section 5, bullet -iii: states "it is the practice to MD5-key all
control traffic exchanged between two networks." 'it is the practice'
doesn't read very well to me.  Maybe change it to 'it is current
practice' or 'it is best practice'?

Section 5, bullet -iv: "and /or" => "and/or" or "and / or".

Section 6.1.1, bullet -i: states "If MS-PWs are tunneled, across a PSN
that only supports SS-PWs, then only" I would suggest removing the first
comma as it makes the sentence flow better IMO.

Section 6.1.2, first paragraph: states "Mechanisms to protect an MS-PW
when an element the existing path of a MS-PW fails MUST be provided"
change to "when an element in the existing path".

Section 6.1.2, bullets -i and -iii: "Mechanisms" => "mechanisms".

Section 6.1.3, firsth paragraph: states "(e.g. BW)," this is the only
place that this abbreviation is used so I would suggest expanding it to
"(e.g. bandwidth),".

Section 6.2, bullet -ix: states "This requirement allows a PW segment to
be setup between two (Autonomous System Border Routers (Asks)" remove
the first "(" as it's superfluous and I think "(Asks)" should be
"(ASBRs)".

Section 6.2.1, bullet -iv: "transit , and" => "transit, and" and
"terminationin" => "termination in".

Section 6.4, second paragraph: states "These signaled MS-PW segments can
be on the path of a statically configured MS-PW, signaled/static route
MS-PW or signaled/dynamic route MS-PW." I would re-word this as follows
"These signaled MS-PW segments can be on the path of a statically
configured MS-PW, a signaled/statically routed MS-PW or
signaled/dynamically routed MS-PW."

Section 6.4, sixth paragraph: states "For the signaled/static route and
signaled/dynamic route MS-PW setup mechanisms" I would reword this as
follows "For the signaled/statically routed and signaled/dynamically
routed MS-PW setup mechanisms".

Section 6.4.2: states "The protection and primary paths for the
protected segment(s) share the same respective segments endpoints." 'the
same respective segments endpoints' doesn't make sense to me, maybe you
mean 'the same respective segment endpoints'?

Section 8: states "The security requirements for MS-PWs setup" suggest
removing the superfluous 's' from 'MS-PWs'

Section 8.1, first paragraph: "may connect one T-PE in one SP" => "may
connect a T-PE in one SP" and on the 4th line "theere" => "there" and
"one or more PDUs be falsely" => "one or more PDUs could be falsely".

Section 8.1, third paragraph: states "MUST be able to police an incoming
MS-PW traffic to the MS-PW traffic parameters" doesn't make sense to me
I think you mean "MUST be able to police an incoming MS-PW traffic unit"
or "MUST be able to police incoming MS-PW traffic"?  Also on the 6th
line of the 3rd paragraph "then they are allocated" => "than they are
allocated".

Section 8.2, fourth paragraph: "authentication , and" =>
"authentication, and"

General: You sometimes use "Autonomous System" and sometimes "autonomous
system" I would suggest standardising on one or the other unless there
is some distinction between the capitalised and non-capitalised
spellings.

General: You sometimes use "end-end" and sometimes "end-to-end" I would
suggest standardising on one or the other.

General: You sometimes use "a MS-PW" and sometimes "an MS-PW" I would
suggest standardising on one or the other.

Ben

-- 
Ben Niven-Jenkins
Network Architect, BT Exact
  
E-mail: [email-masked] 
Office: +44 (0)1473 648225
Mobile: +44 (0)7918 077205
   Fax: +44 (0)1332 578827

_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3