Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-bandwidth-availability-11

Request Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-bandwidth-availability
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 16)
Type Last Call Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2018-12-07
Requested 2018-11-19
Requested by Deborah Brungard
Authors Hao Long , Min Ye , Greg Mirsky , Alessandro D'Alessandro , Himanshu C. Shah
I-D last updated 2018-12-10
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -11 by Matthew Bocci (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -13 by Paul Kyzivat (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -13 by Sandra L. Murphy (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -14 by Sandra L. Murphy (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -14 by Paul Kyzivat (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -14 by Shwetha Bhandari (diff)
Prep for Last Call
Assignment Reviewer Matthew Bocci
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-bandwidth-availability by Routing Area Directorate Assigned
Reviewed revision 11 (document currently at 16)
Result Has issues
Completed 2018-12-10

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft.
The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related
drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and
sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide
assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing
Directorate, please see

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it
would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF
Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through
discussion or by updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-bandwidth-availability-11.txt
Reviewer: Matthew Bocci
Review Date: 9 December 2018
IETF LC End Date: Unknown
Intended Status: Standards Track


I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved
before publication.


The document is relatively concise, but I found that it could do with rewording
in many areas for clarity and to correct the English grammar. I have one issue
that I found that I consider major that I have listed below but that should be
resolved as soon as possible. There are also some minor issues related to the
clarity of the specification that should be fixed before publication.

Major Issues:

Page 6, 3rd Paragraph: "When two LSPs request bandwidth with the same
   requirement, contention SHOULD/MUST be resolved by comparing the
   node IDs, .."

   Either it is a SHOULD or a MUST. The distinction between the two can make the
   difference between a document being acceptable or not to a WG and the IETF
   and can raise wider arguments about interoperability. Please resolve which
   of these you mean
    before proceeding.

Minor Issues:

Page 5, 1st Paragraph below figure 1: "The Availability TLV MUST come along
with Ethernet Bandwidth Profile TLV."

   I think you need to be more careful in the way this phrased. You are not
   saying that an Ethernet BW Profile TLV must always be accompanied by an
   Availability TLV, but rather that if you include an Availability TLV, the
   Ethernet BW Profile TLV must also be included. I suggest rephrasing this to
   "When the Availability TLV is included it MUST be present along with the
   Ethernet Bandwidth Profile TLV."

Page 3, 2nd Paragraph: I found the whole discussion here somewhat confusing.
The text seems to mix up service availability requirements (which are often
specified in an SLA e.g. % of time a service is UP), with the ability of a
given service (voice/video/non-real-time data etc) to withstand fluctuations in
the bandwidth of the underlying transport. This could be fixed by always using
the term 'bandwidth availability' instead of just 'availability'.


I found that the readability could be improved with some rewording of the text
to improve the English grammar and sentence structure. I would suggest
reviewing with a native English speaker to help with this.