Last Call Review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn-09
review-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn-09-genart-lc-sparks-2014-08-21-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 11)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2014-08-26
Requested 2014-08-14
Authors Georgios Karagiannis, Anurag Bhargava
Draft last updated 2014-08-21
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -09 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -10 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Robert Sparks 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn-09-genart-lc-sparks-2014-08-21
Reviewed rev. 09 (document currently at 11)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2014-08-21

Review
review-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn-09-genart-lc-sparks-2014-08-21

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-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn-09
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 21 Aug 2014
IETF LC End Date: 26 Aug 2014
IESG Telechat date: 2 Oct 2014

Summary: Ready (with nits) for publication as Experimental.

David's shepherd writeup points out that implementation and usage 
experience is desired before producing a proposed standard. Are there 
any points of concern about how this might behave (or misbehave) in a 
deployed network that such experience would inform? If so, it would be 
useful to call them out in the document.

It would be nicer if the document argued why there are no new security 
considerations introduced by the new behavior defined in this draft, 
rather than tacitly asserting that there aren't any.

The terminology section has lots of 2119 words in it. It's hard to tell 
when these have been copied from some other draft (and this is just 
restating them) vs when this draft is introducing a new requirement. 
Since a new requirement would likely be missed if it appeared only in a 
terminology section, would it be feasible to make sure anything new is 
well covered in section 3 or 4 and remove 2119 from these definitions 
altogether?

The rest of these comments are minor editorial nits:

Section 1.2, paragraph 3: "Intserv over Diffserv can operate over a 
statically provisioned Diffserv region or RSVP aware." is missing a a 
word somewhere.

Section 1.2 paragraph 4: "By using multiple aggregate reservations for 
the same PHB allows enforcement of the different preemption priorities 
within the aggregation region." doesn't parse. Should the initial "By" 
be deleted?

The definition for PCN-domain is very close to circular. Perhaps some 
words can be removed?