Hello, I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see ​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft. Document: draft-ietf-ccamp-microwave-framework-04 Reviewer: Loa Andersson Review Date: 2017-12-14 IETF LC End Date: not known Intended Status: Informational Summary: I have two major issue, number of authors on the front page and the possibility to evaluate whether requirements are met , and some minor concerns, a few nits and as set of general comments. I think this should be resolved before publication. Even though I have quite a bit of comments, and I think there is more work to do before publication, I think that the document in general is well written and that it won't be too hard to fix my comments. Comments: Major Issues: ------------- This document has 10 authors listed on the front page. The directive from the RFC Editor says that there can be only 5 authors listed on the front page, all other names should go into Contributors section. Occasionally there have been 6 authors listed, but never as many 10. There is no motivation in the Shepherds Write-Up why there is such a high number. A second issue is the requirement section, requirements needs to be written rather precise and specific to allow to evaluate if requirements are met or not, I don't think this is the case in the requirements section of this document. Minor issues: ------------ Abstract - if the blank lines are counted this abstract is more than the allocated 20 lines. I've not seen that we normally use RFC 2119 language in the abstract OLD TEXT (last sentence in the abstract Some part of the resulting model MAY be generic which COULD also be used by other technology. NEW TEXT Some part of the resulting model may be generic which could also be used by other technology. I don't think that the meaning changes if the text is changed this way. Introduction; RFC 7322 says: 4.8.1. Introduction Section The Introduction section should always be the first section following the TOC (except in the case of MIB module documents). While "Introduction" is recommended, authors may choose alternate titles such as "Overview" or "Background". These alternates are acceptable. In this document the Introduction is section number 2. Nits: ---- I've just listed a few nits, but it is possible that some nits are lurking among the general comments below. Section 4.2. E2E is an acronym, it should be expanded at first occurrence, but since it is only used once so it would be better to use "end to end" rather than the acronym. Security section first paragraph- 2 typos OLD TEXT In additon NEW TEXT In addition OLD TEXT transport netork domain NEW TEXT transport network domain Security section second paragrap - typo OLD TEXT charactersitics of of NEW TEXT characteristics of General comments: ----------------- Paragraph 2 of section 1 says: Millimeter wave is also known as extremely high frequency (EHF) or very high frequency (VHF) by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), It is not clear from this if EHF and VHF are two different names for the same thing or if they are different. I have limited access to ITU-T documents, and has not been able to check. If my memory serves me right VHF is a technology used for broadcast radio, but it is possible that the acronym has been "re-used". Paragraph 3 of section 1 says: ETSI EN 302 217 series defines the characteristics and requirements of microwave/millimeter wave equipment and antennas. Especially ETSI EN 302 217-2 specifies the essential parameters for the systems operating from 1.4GHz to 86GHz. I don't know ETSI documentation that well, but isn't a reference possible so it would be easier to find. Note: I found the reference later in the document, why not use it already here?? Paragraph 6 of section 1 says: Radio Link Terminal is an interface providing packet capacity and/or TDM capacity TDM is(surprisingly) not a well-known acronym and needs to be expanded at first occurrence. The last paragraph of section 1 First, this paragraph seems to be a bit tainted by marketing, RFCs are supposed to stand for at least 25 years, what is conceived to be "extremely" dynamic will be stone age in just a few year, would be good to drop most of the value words. Also the paragraph seems to have an internal contradiction. The first sentence say that SDN is an emerging technology, and the last sentence that it is widely deployed; one or the other maybe, but not both. First paragraph of the Introduction The paragraph says: Network requirements vary between operators globally as well as within individual countries. The overall goal is however the same - to deliver the best possible network performance and quality of experience in a cost-efficient way. Does this paragraph really contribute anything? Second paragraph of the Introduction The paragraphs says: Microwave/millimeter wave (hereafter referred to as microwave, but including the frequency bands represented by millimeter wave) It might be a good idea to refer to microwave and millimeter wave with a common name, but this convention is not used consistently throughout te document. actually doubt that a common name can be used, there are placs where microwave and millimeter wave needs to be explained separately, would it cause any problem just removing this sentence. Thought on figure 1 and figure 2: Since we are talking models, with my modelling glasses on, figure 1 tells me that there is a 1:n relationship between a Radio Link Terminal and Carrier Termination , and that a Carrier Termination is part of the Radio Link Terminal. Figure 2 tells me that both the Radio Link Terminal and Carrier Termination are independently part of "Interface" and that the relation between them are 1:1. I suppose that both can't be correct. Section 3 It is quite a convention to place the section referring to RFC2119, as a subsection to the Introduction. It is not consistently done, but I think it is a good practice. Section 4 and 5 I do not have much comments on section 4 and 5, I find both sections a bit to sure about predicting the future and often claiming to know the motivation why operators do things the way they do. The document has been through wglc, so this is obviously what the wg wants. Section 6 Requirements Since you have requirements in the document, it might be necessary for other documents to normatively reference this document. If they are normatively referenced from a Standards Track document this will cause a down-ref. In itself not a problem, but the AD should be aware of this. It is often said that it must be possible to verify if a requirement is fulfilled, some of the requirement text in this document is not very precise. If you say it must be possible to configure a Radio Link Terminal, what exactly does that mean? Some of the lists seems to be examples of things that could be configured; if in one implementation it is possible to configure 4 out of 5 parameters is the requirement met? References ---------- You are using the RFC 2119 language in the Requirements section, I think this make RFC 2119 a normative reference even though this is an Informational document One other question about Normative and Informative references, at least on the face of it it looks like all existing RFC has been placed as normative references, while all work in progress are informative. It is not obvious that anything but RFC 2119 needs to be in the normative section; or if some of the other docments need to be there, why not e.g. [I-D.ahlberg-ccamp-microwave-radio-link] [I-D.vallin-ccamp-alarm-module] should also be there. Can you please explain the rationale behind the placement of a reference in the normative or informative section. Yes - I know that RFC 8022 is in the informative section. -- Loa Andersson email: loa@pi.nu Senior MPLS Expert Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64