Draft: draft-ietf-l2tpext-pwe3-atm-03.txt Reviewer: Mary Barnes Review Date: Wednesday 8/17/2005 7:57 PM CST Telechat Date: Thursday 8/18/2005 Summary: Almost Ready. there is a concern over the security section (raised also by Ted and Russ). In addition, there are some editorial nits, a few of which are highlighted below. Detailed Comments: ------------------- Security Considerations section is inadequate. It mentions that other pwe3 documents would address the security considerations, but there are no specific references, nor even a basic description of the threats associated with the scenarios under which this protocol is used. (similar comment as raised by Ted and Russ). Editorial nits: ------------------ - Abstract. First sentence is grammatically incorrect. I would suggest adding either "defines", "specifies" or "describes" prior to "how" in that sentence. - General. First use of acronyms should be expanded, even though they're listed in the glossary (e.g. SLI in section 1, etc.). - Section 3. Second/last sentence. Would read better by changing from: " This includes what will happen when an ATM Circuit (e.g. AAL5 PVC) is created, deleted or changes state when circuit is in alarm." to: "This includes what will happen when an ATM Circuit (e.g. AAL5 PVC) is created, deleted or changes state when circuit state is in alarm. [At least I think the statement is referring to the circuit being in a stat of ALARM.]