AD review of: draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-test-sonet-sdh-01.txt

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

Here are my comments. Pls address them and do a quick
revision. I do not intend to issue IETF Last Call before
IETF meeting in SF is over.

- 2nd para in sect 1 
  s/is being developed/has been developed/ ??
- You have 16-bit fields for which you specify values as:
    0x01
    0x02
    ...
  And it is then not clear (to me) which bit you actually mean
  Maybe better to do:
   0x0001
   0x0002
   ...
- I see a few times "Note that no change is required to the
  TestsStatusSuccess and TestStatusFailure messages".
  That however seems very obvious, because they will ALWAYS go 
  over the control channel. I think there is never a change to 
  those messages is there... but with making this statement, one
  gets the impression that sometimes they will be changed.
- sect 4.1.1.1. I see:
       The type of the trace message.  The following values are
       defined.  All other values are reserved and should be sent as
       zero and ignored on receipt.

       1 = SONET Section Trace (J0 Byte)
       2 = SONET Path Trace (J1 Byte)
       3 = SONET Path Trace (J2 Byte)
       4 = SDH Section Trace (J0 Byte)
       5 = SDH Path Trace (J1 Byte)
       6 = SDH Path Trace (J2 Byte)

  The text about "All other valies are reserved and should be sent
  as zero..." is OK for field that have bitmasks or such, but here 
  you seem to be using the field as an integer field, no?
- last sentence before sect 4.1.3.1... pls check:
     Section .            4.1.3.1
  Actually also check the sentence before that
- page 11/12/13 I see strange formatting that causes lines to
  go beyond col 72, and I am not sure that proper sections
  are referenced when I see 
      Section 4.          ..1.3.1  
- Security considerations are unacceptable. 
  - No new security considerations compared to what?
  - Which security considerations DO apply?
- IANA considerations
  - pls be specific as to in which name space(s) you want 
    IANA to assign code points. And within such a name space,
    specify from which block (e.g. Consensus based? user sapce?
- copyright section has a year of 2001 !!??





Thanks,
Bert