Last Call Review of draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-
review-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-genart-lc-melnikov-2012-07-03-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 10) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
| Deadline | 2012-07-10 | |
| Requested | 2012-06-28 | |
| Authors | Simon Perreault , Ikuhei Yamagata , Shin Miyakawa , Akira Nakagawa , Hiroyuki Ashida | |
| I-D last updated | 2012-07-03 | |
| Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -??
by Alexey Melnikov
Genart Telechat review of -?? by Alexey Melnikov Secdir Telechat review of -?? by Sam Hartman |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Alexey Melnikov |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
| Completed | 2012-07-03 |
review-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-genart-lc-melnikov-2012-07-03-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at < http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-07 Reviewer: Alexey Melnikov Review Date: 3-July-2012 IETF LC End Date: 10-July-2012 IESG Telechat date: Pending Summary: The document is ready for publication as a BCP. Major Issues: None Minor Issues: None Nits/editorial comments: I found it is to be odd to have a requirements document as a BCP, but I am sure you can sort the right status out with IESG. I found the justification for REQ-6 hard to read/understand. Why does access to servers being on the internal network need to go through CGN at all? REQ-10: Justification: It is anticipated that CGNs will be primarily deployed in ISP networks where the need for management is critical. This requirement is at the SHOULD level to acocunt for typo: account the fact that some CGN operators may not need management functionality. Oh really :-)? (Sorry, couldn't resist.)