Document: draft-ietf-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-01.txt
Reviewer:         Scott Brim
Review Date:      20 Oct 2008
IESG Telechat Date: 23 Oct 2008

Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be fixed before publication.

Comments:

2.1.1 UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Procedures

  "The contents of the UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object MUST be constructed
  using a consistent format and procedures used to construct the
  FLOWSPEC object that will be used for the LSP, e.g., [RFC2210] or
  [RFC4328]."

    This sentence is a little funky.  Here are two possible changes:

    ... using a format and procedures consistent with those used to
    construct the FLOWSPEC ...

    ... using the same format and procedures used to construct the
    FLOWSPEC ...

  Sections 2.2.1 and 2.3.1 have the same issue.


2.2.1 UPSTREAM_TSPEC Procedures

  "When an UPSTREAM_TSPEC object is received by an ingress, the
  ingress MAY determine that the original reservation is
  insufficient to satisfy the traffic flow. In this case, the
  ingress MAY issue a Path message with an updated UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC
  object to modify the resources requested for the upstream traffic
  flow. This modification might require the LSP to be re-routed, and
  in extreme cases might result in the LSP being torn down when
  sufficient resources are not available."

    I'm ignorant here but since both directions are being set up
    simultaneously, is a teardown appropriate at this point?


7.2 Informative references

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-01) exists of
     draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-00

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-05) exists of
     draft-ietf-ccamp-ethernet-traffic-parameters-04

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-03) exists of
     draft-ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-framework-02
_______________________________________________