Document: draft-ietf-pwe3-tdm-requirements-06.txt 
Trigger: IESG telechat 3 Mar 2005
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
AD: Thomas Narten 
Review Date: 25 Feb 2005

Intended status: Informational

Review:
This document appears to be almost ready for Informational.  It is an extension 
of RFC3916

S6.1: Worth making clear these are additional qualifications or applicability of 
the PWE3-REQ requirements.  Not all of the points are actually phrased as 
requirements which is a little confusing.  Notably 2/1, 3, 4 and 5.

I suspect the combination of the second part of 7.3.1 (2) on packet arrival time 
estimation, 7.8 on congestion control and 7.9 on fault detection mandate 
something rather better than a generic packet switched Internet, and may or may 
not be realistic!

Editorial nits:
Title/Abstract/s1: It would be useful to put the definitions of the 
abbreviations PSN, PDH, SONET, SDH and PWE3 in Section 1 and leave them out of 
the title and (maybe) the abstract.

S1.2, para 3: => This also includes a pointer based mechanism for carrying
   payload asynchronously.  ?? s/payload/payloads/

S2: The acronym PW is not defined.

S3: => However some terms and acronyms are specific in conjunction with the
   TDM services.  Maybe: s/some terms..conjunction/some specific terms and 
acronyms are used in conjunction/

S6.1:  The second level numbered lists might be better with letter labels.

S6.1, bullet 2, sub-bullet 3: The acronym NSP is not defined.

S7.1: Acronym AC is not defined.

S7.5, bullet 2: s/edge- to-edge/edge-to-edge/

S8: This is (still) poorly phrased.  Suggest replacing with:
The security considerations in [PWE3-REQ] are fully applicable to the emulation 
of TDM services, but there do not appear to be any additional considerations to 
take into account.

S9.1: I have difficulties with Informational documents having Normative 
references but [PWE3-REQ] has them…