Telechat Review of draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req-06

Request Review of draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 07)
Type Telechat Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2014-01-21
Requested 2014-01-16
Authors Wim Henderickx, Jim Uttaro, Ali Sajassi, Rahul Aggarwal, Nabil Bitar, Aldrin Isaac
Draft last updated 2014-01-21
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -05 by Vijay Gurbani (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -06 by Vijay Gurbani (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -05 by Tina Tsou (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Vijay Gurbani 
State Completed Snapshot
Review review-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req-06-genart-telechat-gurbani-2014-01-21
Reviewed rev. 06 (document currently at 07)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2014-01-21


I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-req-06
Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani
Review Date: Jan-21-2014
IETF LC End Date: Unknown
IESG Telechat date: Jan-23-2014

Major: 0
Minor: 0
Nits: 2

This document is ready for publication as an Informational.

The document is ready, most of the nits in the nit-list I had have
been addressed by the IESG during balloting.  That said, the remaining
nits on my list are:

- The requirements in the Security Considerations section (R13 and R14)
 are better put in Section 6 (Ease of Provisioning Requirements), no?
 Is there something intrinsic to do with security on R13 and R14 that
 they are put in the Security Considerations section?  If there is, it
 is not apparent to me.

- Grammar/language: Section 7, Requirement 9:
 s/This gives rise to two/This results in two/
 (Reason: "gives rise to" is probably best left to works of
 fiction :-) )


- vijay
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA)
Email: vkg@{,} / vijay.gurbani at

  | Calendar: