Subject: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-uni-nni-02

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 16:13:59 -0600

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-mpls-tp-uni-nni-02
Reviewer: Ben Campbell	
Review Date: 2010-12-21
IETF LC End Date: 2010-12-23
IESG Telechat date: (if known)

Summary: This draft is ready for publication as in informational RFC. I have a small number of editorial comments that I think could further improve the draft if there is another round of editing.

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments:

-- Section 1, 1st paragraph:

I suggest moving the expansion of MPLS-TP TP the first mention in the body of the draft.

-- Section 1.1, 1st paragraph:

More conventional in what context? Useful for what purpose?

-- Section 1.2, definition of UNI-N

I suggest expanding PE in the definition.

-- Figures 1 and 2:

Is the meaning of the various line types described elsewhere? If so, a statement to that effect with a reference would be helpful.

-- Figure 2:

I suggest expanding CP somewhere.

---

From: "Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 12:44:45 +0100

Ben,

Thank you for your comments. Please see below.

Best regards

Matthew

On 21/12/2010 22:13, "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>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>.
>
>Summary: This draft is ready for publication as in informational RFC. I
>have a small number of editorial comments that I think could further
>improve the draft if there is another round of editing.
>
>Major issues: None
>
>Minor issues: None
>
>Nits/editorial comments:
>

OK. I have moved this to the first use of the acronym in that section.

>More conventional in what context? Useful for what purpose?

It is the convention to represent a UNI or NNI as a specific reference
point between functional groups e.g. MEF E-NNI (Figure 2 of MEF26) or ATM
UNI (ITU-T I.413), rather than to represent these as a span as in the
original diagrams in RFC5921. I propose to rephrase this sentence to:
"However, it is convention to illustrate these interfaces as reference
points."

With regard to your second question, I propose to rephrase the sentence as
follows:
"Furthermore, in the case of a UNI, it is useful to illustrate the
distribution of UNI functions between the Customer Edge (CE) side and the
Provider Edge (PE) side of the UNI (the UNI-C and UNI-N) in order to show
their relationship to one another."

>I suggest expanding PE in the definition.

OK 

>
>-- Figures 1 and 2:
>
>Is the meaning of the various line types described elsewhere? If so, a
>statement to that effect with a reference would be helpful.

We have used the same convention as RFC5921. However, there is no key
there. I am not sure that a complete key would clarify the diagram as the
same line type is used to represent multiple entities due to the limited
umber of characters that are useful for ASCII drawing.

>I suggest expanding CP somewhere.

CP is expanded in the terminology section.

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 16:22:03 -0600

Thanks for the quick response. Also see below. I elided sections that I think have been addressed.

> On 21/12/2010 22:13, "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]> wrote:

[...]

> their relationship to one another."

WFM

> umber of characters that are useful for ASCII drawing.

Ah, I agree it probably would be too much to add a complete key, and on re-reading, I see most of the lines are sufficiently labeled. But I am still confused by a few of them. For example, in under the UNI column, I see both a single and double dashed (equal signs) line under the label of "Client Traffic Flows". Should I assume those to just be two arbitrary flows where the line type just helps me follow a particular flow, or are they somehow different classes of flows?	

On the right side of the same diagram, I see  3 Transport Paths with an outer set of arrows, and the lower two having another arrow between. Should the outer arrows be interpreted as a "channel" over which client traffic flows?

> CP is expanded in the terminology section.

So it is, right there at the top. (I could have sworn I did a text search for that--looks like the search option in the iPad tool I use for reviewing drafts is not reliable :-|)

> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art