Last Call Review of draft-ietf-cdni-use-cases-
review-ietf-cdni-use-cases-genart-lc-krishnan-2012-07-04-00

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see


http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html

).

Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-cdni-use-cases-09.txt
Reviewer: Suresh Krishnan
Review Date: 2012/07/16
IESG Telechat date: 2012/07/19

Summary: This document is ready for publication as an Informational RFC
but I have some comments.

Minor
=====

* Section 1.3 & Figure 1

The CSP-2 part of the text is really not a use case but a "non-use
case". Does such text belong in this document?

* Section 2.3

What does the word ingestion mean in this sentence? It usually means
consumption but that usage does not fit since the CDN interconnection
does not change end user traffic consumption points. Did you mean
"ingress" instead?

o  Allow the ISP to influence and/or control the traffic ingestion
   points.

* Section 2.4

I am not sure that there is a commonly agreed definition of NSP, but the
use of the term NSP in this section does not fit with my understanding
of NSP (it fits more with an ISP who provides broadband service to end
users). Can you clarify why exactly the term NSP is used here?


Editorial
=========

* Introduction:

I feel that the word motivate seems to be a better fit for this sentence
than guide,

OLD:
The document can be used to guide the definition of the requirements (as
documented in [I-D.ietf-cdni-requirements])

NEW:
This document can be used to motivate the requirements (as
documented in [I-D.ietf-cdni-requirements])


Thanks
Suresh