Writeup for draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh

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

Pls put this on next week's telechat agenda

The IESG has approved the Internet-Draft 'Generalized Multiprotocol
Label Switching Extensions  for SONET and SDH Control'
<draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-07.txt> as a Proposed Standard. 
This document is the product of the Common Control and Measurement
Plane Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Scott Bradner and Bert Wijnen.


Technical Summary
 
   This document is a companion to the Generalized Multi-Protocol
   Label Switching (GMPLS) signaling. It defines the Synchronous
   Optical Network (SONET)/Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH)
   technology specific information needed when using GMPLS signaling. 

Working Group Summary
 
  The WG has consensus on this document
 
Protocol Quality
 
  This document was reviewed for the IESG by Bert Wijnen


----------- Pls note ----

I expect another revision based on my nits that I 
considered IETF Last Call comments from myself.
So I have asked editors to get a rev 08 in today.

-----Original Message-----
From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com]
Sent: maandag 10 februari 2003 13:47
To: Ccamp-wg (E-mail)
Subject: AD comments on: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-07.txt


All,

I have asked IESG secretariat to issue an IETF Last Call
for this document for PS. We have detached the 
sonet-sdh-extensions document from the "package" and it
will have to stand on its own. Remember that I am not
willing to defend the sonet-sdh-extensions signalling 
document if nobody can come up with documents (or ptrs to 
documents) that describe the technology to be signalled.

W.r.t. draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-07.txt I have
still a few nits. Pls consider them as the first comments
for the IETF Last Call process (so you can integrate
any edits with whatever needs to be done as a result of
IETF Last Call).

- Personal opinion... I find it disgusting that a list of
  contributors makes up the first 3 pages of the document.
  I wonder why you moved it to the front... If you want to
  keep it, I think it much better fits at the end.
  Nevertheless, I personally will not block it if this is
  what you want.

- At the bottom of section 1, remove the text about changes
  reb 6 to rev 7

- I see funny redmond characters
  - in first para on page 8
  - in footer on each page
  - in the references section, 1st reference
  - in Authors' Addresses section (title)
  - possibly at other places?
  You may want to fix that

- one but last para page 10: s/Others flags/Other flags/

- in the Security Considerations section, you may want to
  make clear that RFC3212 discusses security considerations
  for CR-LDP.

- In the IANA considerations... (but I bet IANA will ask for it)
  you better make it clear which assignments are in which name
  space. I personally would also repeat the actual code points
  to be assigned.

Thanks,
Bert