Bert asked me to have a look and send any
relevant comments concerning draft-ietf-mpls-oam-requirements-02.txt.
I think that in general lines the document
meets its goals. There are however still issues that impact the document
quality and need to be corrected before the document is further
advanced.
Content-related comments:
1. The phrase in the Introduction - 'This memo does not, in its draft form, specify a
standard' what is this supposed to mean? No I-D is a standard, but after approval
will this be an Informational RFC? (not a 'standard'. In any case this phrase
should be out.
2. The document uses as
references several expired Internet-Drafts. This is not acceptable, and the
references should be either updated, or eliminated. By the time the document
will be approved as RFC, all these references also need to be RFCs, otherwise
the document will be hold until normative dependencies are being
resolved.
3. Section 3.1 - examples of
positive and negative false results of ICMP need to be provided in a clear
manner.
4. Should not the document
say something about relationship with OAM at other layers, and with the work
being done in the ITU, and MEF?
5. Section 3.3 is quite
unclear. There is no requirement here, but a list of functions, some of them
not very clear as well. For example what means 'data/control plane OAM capabilities of the
LSR'
and why is this part of the path characterization?
6. Are 'Error detection and
recovery' OAM functions, or rather functions enabled by OAM?
7. I think that the security
consideration section should include considerations related to authentication
of nodes on the path, as well as about possible denial of service attacks by
generation of OAM traffic
8. As the Security section
mentions privacy concerns, should not the requirements mention explicitly that
the option of protecting the traffic by using encryption is
REQUIRED?
Editorial
comments:
1. The I-D nits recommends to
avoid using references in the Abstract section
2. Also in the Abstract - the
acronyms VPN, SLA, and ATM are not explained, and MPLS has an occurrence
before it is detailed
3. References must be split
into normative and informative sections
4. There are two sections
numbered as Sections 3
5. As this is a requirements
document, use of key-words, and reference to RFC 2119 would be
appropriate.
6. Section 3.1, paragraph 4 -
broken syntax
7. The formatting of the
document needs to be improved. For example, spacing between paragraphs is not
consistent.
If you want to include me in
further discussions, please address directly the mails to me. I have
un-subscribed from the mpls wg list a while ago.
Regards,
Dan