Telechat Review of draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-13
review-ietf-pwe3-iccp-13-genart-telechat-romascanu-2014-02-19-00

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





Document: draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-13.txt

Reviewer: Dan Romascanu

Review Date: 2/19/14

IETF LC End Date: 2/11/14

IESG Telechat date: 2/20/14



Summary:



Ready with issues. I did not see any answer from the editors or shepherd to the
issues raised in the IETFLC Gen-ART review and there was no revision of the
document since then. Although none of the issues raised seems to be blocking,
 I believed that they should be considered and answered as part of the IETF
 Last Call Comments.



This is a complex but well written document. It is ready, a number of minor
issues need clarification and possibly editing. Some nits also may be
considered to fix



Major issues:



None



Minor issues:



1.



The document (and the name of the protocol defined here) uses the notion of
‘chassis’. However there is no definition or reference to a definition that
would clarify what a ‘chassis’ is.

2.



In section 7.2.2.1 – I am not a fan of transferring information in text format
like in the Disconnect Cause String – no interoperability results if there no
agreement on a finite set of causes. Anyway – should
 this not be UTF-8 format?

3.



Similar question in Section 7.2.4 – why is Aggregator Name a text? Why not
using AggregatorID as per IEEE 802.1AX?

4.



In Section 7.2.5 – if Port Speed corresponds to the ifHighSpeed object in the
IF-MIB, should not also Port (interface) name correspond to ifName truncated to
20 characters whenever possible?





Nits/editorial comments:



1.



Some acronyms need expansion at the first occurrence – e.g. POP, CO

2.



In section 3.3/i: PE nodes MAY be collocated or remote – this MAY needs not be
capitalized.

3.



The first two lines in the diagram in page 16 are mis-aligned

4.



The diagrams in 7.1.1., 7.1.5   end at 16-bit boundary with the last field
defined for optional sub-TLVs. Is this intentional? Do they suggest that the
number of octets is always 4*n + 2? What happens else?

5.



In section 7.3.1:’ -ii. PW ID TLV or generalized PW ID TLV’ I think what is
meant is actually ’ -ii. One of PW ID TLV or generalized PW ID TLV’