AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-07.txt

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

Since I do not intend to request IETF Last Call before the
IETF meeting in SF is over, maybe the authors can do a quick
rev to try and address the following points.

Here are my review comments

- More or less serious:
- scenario at end of sect 3.2.2
  WOuld it not be wise to include the "waiting for interval
  to expire" before a resend is done? Otherwise, if people
  forget, I can see congestion being created.
- IANA considerations
  - I wonder if you want "IETF Consensus" based assignments.
    There was quite some debate as to what that means recently.
    Maybe you mean or want "standards action" instead?
  - I also wonder... values 0-127 are allocated by expert review,
    while the values in this doc (and a few other lmp related
    docs on my plate) are in that space and are on stds track,
    so they would be "standards action" based.
  - So pls make sure that you have documented what you want/intend
- sect 12.1 as example (this occurs several times). It says:
   Msg Type: 8 bits.  The following values are defined.  All other
             values are reserved and should be sent as zero and ignored
             on receipt.
  But the values seem to be integer values and not bits. So I do not
  understand the "All other values are reserved and should be sent as zero.."
  especially the "should be sent as zero" seems strange in this case.

Nits:
- sect 1. Expand acronyms when used for first time
  examples are DWDM, TDm, WDM. There may be others
- When I read (2nd para pge 9)
    LMP adjacency.  The value of the Message_Id is monotonically
    increasing and only decreases when the value wraps.
  Then I think I would change 
    and only decreases when the value wraps.
  into
    and wraps when teh max value is reached
- 2nd para sect 3.1
  I guess that Node-Id of two nodes can never be equal.
  But if such happens (by error) who is then the winning node,
  or what should the behaviour be?
- sect 3.2.1 2nd and 3rd para
  Is for example a 1 millisecond interval valid?
  WOuld it possibly cause congestion (rfc2914) ??
- sect 3.2.2 (3rd para) explains when difference can be more
  than 1. I think that in the case of UDP packet loss, the
  diff can slo be more then 1, no? 
- at a few places I see msoft (non-ASCII) characters
  p48, p57, maybe other places too.
- I see at various places 16-bit flags (or other) fields and then
  values are shown as:
    0x01
    0x02
  This may not be 100% clear as to which bits are then used.
  Do you mean
    0x0001
    0x0002 
  An example is page 53
- Last sentence of sect 18 ?? DId that sonet test stuff not go to
  a separate document ??

Thanks,
Bert