Telechat Review of draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-
review-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-genart-telechat-melnikov-2012-07-17-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 10)
Type Telechat Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2012-07-17
Requested 2012-07-12
Draft last updated 2012-07-17
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
Review review-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-genart-telechat-melnikov-2012-07-17
Review completed: 2012-07-17

Review
review-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-genart-telechat-melnikov-2012-07-17

My favourite typo was fixed in -08 ;-), my comment on REQ 10 was replied 


to and I am still undecided on the document status (IESG should 


decided), so this document is Ok for publication as far as I am concerned.




On 03/07/2012 13:24, Alexey Melnikov wrote:



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.)