FW: draft-ietf-ccamp-tracereq-01.txt

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

Please consider these comments and let me know if they
wrrant some additional text in the ID. 

Thanks,
Bert 

>*****  o Tracing Requirements for Generic Tunnels (None)
>            <draft-ietf-ccamp-tracereq-01.txt>
>         Token: Wijnen, Bert
>         Note: New revision Addresses comments.
>         Now on IESG agenda for April 17th
>         Responsible: Bert

1. this document looks like it might be the union of all the
   "i want it to do <foo>" requests. an important part of 
   requirements documents is knowing what to not require.
   do they have any?
2. i am concerned about the security stuff that they've buried in 
   their requirements. nothing definite. it seems unwieldy. but
   then, so many security things do...
3. section 4.1 and 4.2 seem to be worded with a particular
   implementation in mind. requirements documents ought not
   specify solutions (eg, 4.2 talks about udp, why can't i use 
   icmp?)
4. justification of requirements might be nice.