[DNA] Re: Review of: 'Link-layer Event Notifications for Detecting NetworkAttachments' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-dna-link-information)

[Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>]

Hi Matt,
   Thanks for the review. Sorry I could not reply earlier since I was on 
vacation. Please find comments inline.

Thanks
Suresh

Matt Mathis wrote:
> This document is an informational catalog of link state information available
> from well-known access technologies, yet many portions read like a standard,
> including the use of prescriptive language and RFC 2119 terminology. This is
> likely to be confusing to future implementers.
> 
> For example:
> 
>    "If a link up with the R-flag set was generated, another link up MUST
>    follow up as soon as....   The event attributes MUST indicate
>    whether the packets transmitted since the previous notification were
>    presumed to be blocked (B-flag) or allowed (A-flag) ...
> 
> Where "R-flag", "B-flag" and "A-flag" are constructs of this draft and not
> some other document.
> 
> In many parts of the document, standards language is used to emphasize
> relationships that are implicit in the definitions.  For example it defines
> "Link up" to be an event signifying that the interface has become capable of
> communicating data packets (my paraphrase).  The document tends to say
> something like "Event X MUST generate Link-Up ..... which MUST be signaled to
> the IP layer" (my rewrite), rather than "The [device] becomes capable of
> communicating data packets on event X, so (by definition) it is Link-Up."

Do you feel strongly about the normative language in the document? If so 
we can spend some time to rewrite the text. But since it is an 
informational document, no one can really claim compatibility to 
draft-ietf-dna-link-information, can they?

> 
> For some of the specific link technologies, this language seems to be an
> after-the-fact specification of how current implementations actually work.
> Most of the document is written in an appropriate observational language:
> "Since the [device] becomes capable of communicating data packets on event
> [X], this is an appropriate indication of link up."   This "observational"
> style is by far best for an Informational document.
> 
> It would be appropriate to rewrite all paragraphs using 2119 language, as well
> as the less formal "must" used in 3 places.
> 
> Some specific comments:
> PDP is not defined

OK. Will take care of this.

> 
> It says: "The activation of a such secondary PDP Context MUST NOT generate
> another link up event notification."  Given that other device types permit
> link-up events that do not require new IP parameters, it seems out of place to
> forbid this case.  (even ignoring the MUST) Perhaps something like "it is not
> desirable treat every new PDP context as a link change because...."

OK. How about

"The activation of such a secondary PDP context does not usually 
generate a link up event since it does not require new IP parameters".