AD review of: draft-ietf-tewg-interas-mpls-te-req-06.txt (fwd)

Raymond, JP,

Please see attached comments from AD during IESG review.

It appears that due to some process un-glitching - I am responsible to 
make sure you address all of these and update the draft! :)

Please let me know when you plan on having this completed, then I'll 
review and bounce it back to the IESG.

A few clarifications...

(2) below refers to "Summary for Sub-IP related Internet Drafts"

On (7) below, I'm wondering if the focus of this is solely on the last 
sentence of section 6.1 (as it dillutes the requirements from the previous 
paragraph) ?  Bert - any clarifications would be appreciated.

thanks!

Jim


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 15:52:23 +0200
From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email protected]>
To: "Ed Kern (E-mail)" <[email protected]>, "Jim Boyle (E-mail)" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Alex Zinin (E-mail)" <[email protected]>
Subject: AD review of: draft-ietf-tewg-interas-mpls-te-req-06.txt

WG chairs, as you probably have seen, we are processing this
as an experiment with new process:

   Participant in PROTO Team pilot:
   Workgroup Chair Followup of AD Evaluation Comments
   http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-proto-ad-comments-pilot-01.txt

So here we go with an initial set of comments. I am reading more and I am
asking OPS and RTG directorates for review.

1. ID-nits check:
   $ idnits-v1.24 <drafts/draft-ietf-tewg-interas-mpls-te-req-06.txt
   idnits 1.24, 16 Apr 2004, 07:05

   Line 479 contains non-ascii character in position 29.
   -->    network.  This allows SP1Æs customers connected to SP2 PE router to
                                  ^
   Line 488 contains non-ascii character in position 41.
   -->    TE LSP tail-end router located in SP1Æs network, as shown in the
                                              ^
2. Pls remove section: draft-ietf-tewg-interas-mpls-te-req-06.txt
   This makes no sense once it gets to "Publication requested" stage.

3. The use of RFC2119 language requires a normative ref to that doc.

4. Section 5.1.10.1 seems to require a writable MIB so that inter-AS TE
   tunnels can be configured (created. modified, deleted) via SNMP.
   It is OK with me... but are you sure that that is a hard requirement
   (MUST language is used) ?

5. Sect 5.1.12 and 5.1.13 use "SHOULD not" while I think "SHOULD NOT"
   is intended?

6. Lots of acronyms are used without being expanded the first time thye
   are used. 

7. Sect 6.1 .... MMM.... what does it really mean?
   It is so flexible, that ... oh well ...

8. End of sect 6.2 says:
      Other criteria might be added as this draft will evolve.
   while this draft is now "complete", no?

9. I worry about several normative references to pretty old I-Ds.
   Any outlook that those will indeed be approved at some point in
   time. Maybe several references are pretty old and need updating?   

Thanks,
Bert