Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-scsi-03

Request Review of draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-scsi
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 04)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2017-07-13
Requested 2017-06-29
Authors Daniele Ceccarelli , Lou Berger
I-D last updated 2017-08-01
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -02 by Thomas H. Clausen (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -03 by Paul Wouters (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -03 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -03 by Qin Wu (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Qin Wu
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-scsi by Ops Directorate Assigned
Reviewed revision 03 (document currently at 04)
Result Has nits
Completed 2017-08-01
I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These
comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of
the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included
in AD reviews during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should
treat these comments just like any other last call comments.

This document defines a new generalized SCSI field format for use by future
specific technologies and Switching Capability types. The draft is well
written, I believe it is ready for publication. Here is a few minor comments:

1.       Section 1, 2nd paragraph

s/in the the Switching Capability-specific information/ in the Switching
Capability-specific information

2.       Section 6, 2nd paragraph

s/either the the "Generalized Multi-Protocol/ either the "Generalized

3.       Section 6, 2nd paragraphs said:

“IANA is requested to create and maintain a new registry, the

"Generalized SCSI (Switching Capability Specific Information) TLVs

Types" registry under either the the "Generalized Multi-Protocol

Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Parameters" registry or a new

"Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Routing

Parameters" registry, at their desecration.”

IANA may be offended if you use the word “desecration ”, I think you should use
discretion instead, also not sure we should use plural form, suggest to change
“at their desecration” into “at his discretion”.

Secondly, I believe if document author can make decision on whether requesting
to add new registry under an existing registry or under a new registry, IANA
workload will be relieved or they will be thrilled.:-) Anyway I leave this up
to you.