Subject: [Tsvwg] Nits in draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-dste-01

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 14:57:10 +0200

Hi,

In doing the PROTO writeup of draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-dste-01 I did notice
a few things that we need to fix before being possible to forward to the
AD.

1. First of all the draft results in both 3 NITS and several warnings
when run through the latest ID-nits checker. I do encourage all authors
to run ID-nits (http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/) before submitting
their draft. The nits reported are:

   Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html:
   * The document seems to lack an Authors' Addresses Section.

     Checking conformance with RFC 3978/3979 boilerplate...

     the boilerplate looks good.

   * The document is more than 15 pages and seems to lack a Table of
     Contents.
   * There are 6 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest
     one being 1 character in excess of 72.

   Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt:
   - It seems as if not all pages are separated by form feeds - found 0 form
     feeds but 29 pages

   Miscellaneous warnings:
   - The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright around line
     1175 does not match the year around line 62

   Experimental warnings:
   - Missing Reference: [RFC2205] is mentioned on line 595, but not defined

   - Unused Reference: [SIP-RSVP] is defined on line 1076, but not
referenced
   - Unused Reference: [BCP-78] is defined on line 995, but not referenced
   - Unused Reference: [RFC3668] is defined on line 992, but not referenced

     Summary: 3 nits, 6 warnings

I would like to have these fixed.

2. The number of authors on the front side. The RFC-editor do have the
following statement on this:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/policy.html#policy.authlist

Can the now listed authors please agree on which are authors and which
are contributors. The RFC-editor has also an clarification on this:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/policy.html#policy.auth2

I do like to have no more than 5 names on the front page. This is not to
reduce the impression of your contribution. It is primarily a practical
matter on how many the PROTO-shepherd, the AD and the RFC-editor will
need to communicate with.

3. Page 3: third paragraph:
"[RSVP-TE] specifies how such MPLS TE Tunnels can
    be established using RSVP-TE signaling. . "
Extra ".".

4. Page 5:
- We have assumed in the current draft that a given MPLS-TE
         tunnel will carry reserved traffic and nothing but reserved
         traffic, which negates the requirement of RFC 2746 to
         distinguish reserved and non-reserved traffic traversing the
         same tunnel by using distinct encapsulations.

I think you should change "the current draft" to "this document". There
more such occurances using the word draft. Please address these.

5. Section 1.1. Please remove this section. It has not further usage
when the document being forward to the IESG.

6. Section 3.4:
"As with [LSP-HIER], the IP TTL vs. RSVP TTL check MUST not be made."

s/MUST not/MUST NOT

So please fix these nits so that we can progress this document.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVA/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone +46 8 4048287
Torshamsgatan 23           | Fax   +46 8 7575550
S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [email-masked]

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 16:35:21 +0200

Hi,

Sorry for the wrong title. I did actually comment on 02.

/Magnus

-- 

Magnus Westerlund