Comments on draft-ietf-gsmp-reqs-03

Hi,

I just reread the reqs draft and have a few minor comments:

- The Changes section should be removed before the next pass.
Then just publish the change list in an email to the group.

- typo in 6.3.1.1  Since an Optical Switch  (not Switches)

- also in 6.3.1.1 i would recommend changing the Optical Switch to just 
Switch since the requirement is for GSMP Switch Configuration to provide 
a list of transports, whatever they may be.  I.e. the requirement is 
motivated by optical but the support is required for non-optical as well.

- in 6.4.2  Should probably add a final sentence that the additional 
mapping will requirement documentation.  I know it seems obvious but ...


and from the NITS so important to ADs.  I have listed some that appear 
to need consideration.

- Do not number the "Status of Memo" or Abstract sections

- Table of Contents is required if > 15 pages
(yes it barely qualifies at 16 pages but some people think all RFC 
should have a TOC).  I know you have a section marked TOC.  But there is 
no TOC in it.

- Introduction  - This draft has an Overview.  Probably the same, but it 
might be safer to call it an intro.

- Security Considerations   - should be a consideration of whether there 
will be any new security requirements.  If there are none, then that 
should be stated.

- References
  o Must be split into normative and non normative sections

- If MUST etc. used, the terms must be defined (or RFC 2119 referenced)
I have a question on whether those terms in an Informational doc really have
the capitalized meaning of RFC2119.  I know I have thought differently 
about this in the past but it may make more sense to just use words in 
English instead of 2119ish.  But then they would not be all caps.

- IPR notices
probably need to say there are not IPR issues as this is a requirements doc.



---
As far as I am concerned, while the issues mentioned in this note will 
required another draft before sending on to the ADs, none is technical 
in content and thus won't warrant another last call.  But there is still 
time for someone to have a substantive comment.

Thanks for the effort
a.