Early Review of draft-ietf-forces-ceha-08
review-ietf-forces-ceha-08-genart-early-dupont-2013-11-10-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-forces-ceha
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 10)
Type Early Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2013-11-06
Requested 2013-10-17
Authors Kentaro Ogawa , Weiming Wang , Evangelos Haleplidis , Jamal Hadi Salim
I-D last updated 2013-11-10
Completed reviews Genart Early review of -08 by Francis Dupont (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -09 by Francis Dupont (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -09 by Linda Dunbar (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Francis Dupont
State Completed
Request Early review on draft-ietf-forces-ceha by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 08 (document currently at 10)
Result Ready
Completed 2013-11-10
review-ietf-forces-ceha-08-genart-early-dupont-2013-11-10-00
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-forces-ceha-08.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20131028
IETF LC End Date: 20131106
IESG Telechat date: unknown

Summary: Ready

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments:
 - 1 pages 2 and 3: I have a concern with the order of definitions.
  IMHO there are 3 solutions:
   * keep the document order arguing definitions are repeated for
    convenience so it doesn't matter there are backward references
    (i.e., someone new in the domain should first read referenced RFCs,
     and at the opposite someone not new in the domain already knows
     the used acronyms)

   * introduce each acronym at its first use

   * same + reorder the definition list to minimize out-of-order
    internal references

  Note the best choice depends on the intended public so you have a better
  idea than me about this...

 - 2.2 second 1. page 5: IMHO the interface is Fp, not Fr.

 - 3.1 figure 2 page 7: Estbalishment -> Establishment

 - 3.1.1 page 7: parametrization -> parameterization

 - 4.1 page 11 (twice): i.e. -> i.e.,

 - 4.1 2. page 11: the and in "+ and 2" should be moved to the end
   of the previous item, i.e., I suggest to change:

           +  1 (HA Mode - Cold Standby) represents that the FE is in HA
              mode cold Standby

           +  and 2 (HA Mode - Hot Standby) represents that the FE is in
              HA mode hot Standby

into

           +  1 (HA Mode - Cold Standby) represents that the FE is in HA
              mode cold Standby, and

           +  2 (HA Mode - Hot Standby) represents that the FE is in
              HA mode hot Standby

    Note if you want to put something at the end of each items the correct
    character is ";", and "." for the last item.

 - 4.2 page 13: practise -> practice

 - 4.2 pages 13 and 14: figure 4 should be on one page (this is
  something to leave to the RFC Editor anyway).

 - 4.2 figure 5 page 14 (3!): Estbalishment -> Establishment

 - Appendix A page 20: some indent problems with "The FE should
  stop | continue" (same remark: we can expect the RFC Editor will
  use a XML pretty-printer for the final editing).

Regards

Francis.Dupont at fdupont.fr

PS: I am at the IETF meeting.