Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels-
review-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels-secdir-lc-nystrom-2011-01-04-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 11) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
Deadline | 2011-01-03 | |
Requested | 2010-12-16 | |
Authors | Tomohiro Otani , Dan Li | |
I-D last updated | 2011-01-04 | |
Completed reviews |
Secdir Last Call review of -??
by Magnus Nyström
|
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Magnus Nyström |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels by Security Area Directorate Assigned | |
Completed | 2011-01-04 |
review-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels-secdir-lc-nystrom-2011-01-04-00
I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. This document defines a new lambda (wavelength) label format for use in GMPLS signaling and routing. I have no particular security concerns with this document. A few editorial comments: - General: The document seems to be in need of a proof-read; there are several examples where the wordings make the intent behind a sentence unclear - I cite some of them below. - Section 2: "The Label_Set object is made by only one sub channel that must be same as the Upstream_Label object": Suggest changing to something like (if I did not misunderstand the intent with this sentence): "The Label_set object shall contain a single sub-channel that must be the same as the Upstream_Label object" - Section 2, last paragraph is unclear and should preferably be re-written for clarity. - Section 3.1, third paragraph, unclear - Sectoin 3.1, why state that n is a two's complement integer? Seems simpler to state it is just an integer? (it does make sense to state it in 3.2, however) -- Magnus