[Pals] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-06

Brian Carpenter <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.pwe3,gmane.ietf.gen-art
Message-ID <[email protected]>
Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review result: Ready with Nits

Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-06

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-06.txt
Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review Date: 2018-06-12
IETF LC End Date: 2018-06-15
IESG Telechat date: 2018-06-21

Summary: Ready with nits
--------

Comments: 
---------

This (with RFC4928) is a wonderful example of why layer violations are a Bad Thing.

Nits:
-----

> 1.  Introduction
....
>   This document recommends the use of the Ethernet pseudowire control
>   word in all but exceptional circumstances.

That's wrong, it *mandates* this usage with a MUST (first paragraph of section 4).

> 3.  Background
....
>   A recent posting on the Nanog email list has highlighted this
>   problem:
>
>   https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2016-December/089395.html

No, it's no longer recent. How about:

   For example, a posting on the Nanog email list highlighted this
   problem:

> 7.  Operational Considerations
>
>   CW presence on the PW is controlled by the configuration and may be
>   subject to default operational mode of not being enabled. 

That sentence is hard to parse. Try this:

   A configuration switch might determine whether the CW is used on the PW. 
   The default configuration might be to disable use of the CW.
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.