Russian Dolls Bandwidth Constraints Model for Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering
draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-russian-07

-----Original Message-----
From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com]
Sent: woensdag 17 december 2003 17:16
To: Tewg (E-mail)
Subject: AD evaluation of: draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-russian-04.txt


Here are my review comments

More or less serious:

- I believe that not the base protocol document should request
  assignment of a BC Model ID, but instead this document should
  do so.

- the IPR section is NOT inline with sect 10 of RFC2026.
  What needs to happen is that we get a proper IPR section, and
  Cisco needs to send an IPR claim/statement to the IETF
  executive director.

Nits/admin

- tell RFC-editor to remove the section about SUB-IP related
  information. Or better remove it in next revision.

- sect 1, 2nd para, last sentence
  add the word "models" at the end of the sentence?

- If we decide that this doc requests assignment of BC Model ID
  (which is my preference) then we need an IANA Considerations
  section.

- Try to be consistent with the base protocol spec in that you use the
  same capitalization/spelling for "Bandwidth Contraints Model".
  There are possibly other such strings/prhases as well that could
  benefit from more consistency.

Thanks,
Bert