Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pce-vendor-constraints-11
|Requested rev.||no specific revision|
|Type||Last Call Review|
|Team||General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)|
Secdir Last Call review of -11 by Warren Kumari
Opsdir Last Call review of -11 by Susan Hares
|Draft last updated||2013-11-26|
missed copying gen-art -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Gen-art last call review: draft-ietf-pce-vendor-constraints-11 Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 14:57:45 -0600 From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks at nostrum.com> To: pce at ietf.org , draft-ietf-pce-vendor-constraints at tools.ietf.org 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-pce-vendor-constraints-11 Reviewer: Robert Sparks Review Date: 26 Nov 2013 IETF LC End Date: 9 Dec 2013 IESG Telechat date: not yet scheduled Summary: Ready (but I have a couple of comments for consideration) Given a quick scan of the list history for this document, I'm surprised there's not more discussion about the potential for creating islands of non-interoperable equipment, and some recommendation for when to define and how to deploy a standard version of a constraint when a common thing is found among vendor specific variants of the constraint (are there implications if an element include both the standard and vendor specific variants?) This is probably bigger than this document, and take it for what it's worth, but the practice of relisting the definition of <svec-list> when you add objects doesn't seem to be working well. For instance, had XRO or GC been defined later, you're probably ok with them being used with these objects too, right? As it is, I'm having a hard time seeing the value in redefining the grammar this way each time you add a new thing. It leads to odd artifacts like _this_ document not providing a good reference to what XRO and GC are (you have to chase through the registry, or look at 5557 or 5521, neither of which are referenced here.