Subject: [RTG-DIR] draft-ietf-pce-manageability-requirements-10

From: Jamal Hadi Salim <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 07:36:36 -0400

Hello,

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft.
The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related
drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review. The purpose
of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs.
For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/routing.html

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it
would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF
Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through
discussion or by updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-pce-manageability-requirements-10
Reviewer: Jamal Hadi Salim
Review Date: September 27, 2010
Intended Status: Historic

Summary:

This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that
should be considered prior to publication.

Comments:

1) Section 1, typo on last paragraph:
s/authros/authors
I suggest running the spell checker from the ietf tools

2) Section 1.2, FCAPS, page 3:
I think it would make sense to have some reference to its
definition. It may be hard (and i dont think Wikipedia can be used
as a normative reference).

3) Section 1.2, bullets expanding FCAPS, page 3:
I think for the intended audience (PCE draft authors), mentioning
what FCAPS stands for maybe sufficient; for people outside PCE
it would make the doc more readable to have 1-2 sentence on each of
those bullets.

4) Section 1.2, paragraph 4, page 3:
Suggest changing "He should reflect" to "The author should reflect"
to make things gender neutral.

5) Section 1.2, paragraph 1 on top of page 4, last sentence:
I think you have some reference failure translation there ...
"work in progress" seems to refer to some document which may
have been work in progress at some point.

6) Section 2, general comment:
Although this is a historical doc, and this may be a little late in
the game to whine about this: I think it would have been useful
to provide some annotated examples for each of the considerations
and recommended subsections(section 3 of this doc).
When i scanned RFC 5706 it made for an interesting read because they
provided examples. Example for the "Null Manageability" this document
provides an excellent example (in fact mentioned at the end;->).
I did scan RFC 5540 and it has excellent fitting examples....

7) Section 2.3, last sentence:
"In time, if an optional subsection is found to be common across many
Internet-Drafts, it may be added to the list in Section 2.2 in a
future revision of this document."

Given this is a historic document - to be archived - is it ever going
to be updated? If not, i suggest removing this piece...

8) Section 3.1, general:
I think somewhere in there (not sure where in the flow), it would
be useful to mention that not just the various parameters should
be listed but also their default values.

cheers,
jamal

---

From: Adrian Farrel <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 17:35:15 +0100

Hi Jamal,

Thanks for the review.

It is a bit odd updating a Historic document!

In a couple of cases below, I think your comments are right, but I propose 
to not make the updates because we ran the experiment with the (broken :-) 
draft. I'll let the AD comment if he disagrees with this disposition.

> I suggest running the spell checker from the ietf tools

Yes. Done.

> as a normative reference).

X.700 added.

> it would make the doc more readable to have 1-2 sentence on each of

I think the X.700 reference is enough. The work was run through PCE with 
these definitions, so I guess the result depended on how the PCE WG 
interpretted these minimal definitions.

> to make things gender neutral.

Yes.

> have been work in progress at some point.

Thanks. Should have been a reference to RFC 5706.

> I did scan RFC 5540 and it has excellent fitting examples....

I have added a note at the top of section 2 to point out the examples listed 
in the Appendix.

> to be updated? If not, i suggest removing this piece...

Fixed.

> be listed but also their default values.

I agree with this point and would make the change if we were still 
developing the document. But I think that the Historic RFC should record 
what was, not what should have been.

New version will be posted soon.

Cheers,
Adrian

---

From: Julien Meuric <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 19:33:22 +0200

Hi.

I'm not sure about the AD, but the one of the chairs agrees.

Julien, helpful ;-)

Le 27/09/2010 18:35, Adrian Farrel a écrit :
> In a couple of cases below, I think your comments are right, but I 
> propose to not make the updates because we ran the experiment with the 
> (broken :-) draft. I'll let the AD comment if he disagrees with this 
> disposition.
>
>> Comments:
>>
> I think the X.700 reference is enough. The work was run through PCE 
> with these definitions, so I guess the result depended on how the PCE 
> WG interpretted these minimal definitions.
>
> I have added a note at the top of section 2 to point out the examples 
> listed in the Appendix.
>
> developing the document. But I think that the Historic RFC should 
> record what was, not what should have been.
>