Hello Adrian, Thnak you for your feedback/review.
You write: "can be handled as IETF last call comments", so there is no need for revision 13 then. Cheers, Huub. -- ================================================================ Always remember that you are unique...just like everyone else... ________________________________________ From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [ietf-boun...@ietf.org] on behalf of Adrian Farrel [adr...@olddog.co.uk] Sent: 03 October 2013 10:48 To: ietf@ietf.org Cc: m...@ietf.org Subject: RE: Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-rosetta-stone-12.txt> Thanks for this document which was surprisingly readable. I have a number of comments from my AD review, but they are all trivial and can be handled as IETF last call comments. Thanks, Adrian --- Nurit will want to change the minor details or her affiliation. --- Abstract Expand MPLS-TP and PW on first use. Expand MS s/recommendations/Recommendations/ >>> Apply throughout document s/nor/or/ --- Section 1 s/telecommunication/Telecommunication/ --- Section 1.2 s/Administration and Maintenance/Administration, and Maintenance/ --- Section 3.4 s/APPENDIX/Appendix/ --- Section 3.5 Please expand PW --- Section 3.7 One might ask whether a co-routed bidirectional path that traverses a LAG or a link bundle uses the same component links in both directions. --- Section 3.8 could probably usefully mention routing along with signaling. --- Section 3.11 s/physical channels/a physical channel/ --- Section 3.16 Please expand LSR --- One paragraph in 3.17 is a bit wild. Therefore, in the context of MPLS-TP LSP or PW Maintenance Entity (defined below) LERs and T-PEs can be MEPs while LSRs and S-PEs can be MIPs. In the case of Tandem Connection Maintenance Entity (defined below), LSRs and S-PEs can be either MEPs or MIPs. s/context of/context of a/ "PW Maintenance Entity" is not defined below (I think). Please expand LER I don't find the definition of "Tandem Connection Maintenance Entity" Maybe you could say ...the case of a Maintenance Entity for a Tandem Connection (defined below) Please expand S-PE --- Section 3.19 Penultimate paragraph Second instance s/(e.g. count packets)./(e.g. counts packets)./ --- Section 3.23 s/described in three ways:/described in one of three ways:/ s/Sub-Path Maintenance Element, and/Sub-Path Maintenance Element, or/ s/as a Tandem Connections./as a Tandem Connection./ --- Section 3.23.2 Section header s/(SMPE):/(SPME):/ --- Section 3.35 The use of pipe ("|") and curly braces ("{" and "}") could usefully be replaced with English language. > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-announce-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-announce- > boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of The IESG > Sent: 02 October 2013 22:45 > To: IETF-Announce > Cc: m...@ietf.org > Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-rosetta-stone-12.txt> (A Thesaurus for the > Terminology used in Multiprotocol Label Switching Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) > drafts/RFCs and ITU-T's Transport Network Recommendations.) to Informational > RFC > > > The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG > (mpls) to consider the following document: > - 'A Thesaurus for the Terminology used in Multiprotocol Label Switching > Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) drafts/RFCs and ITU-T's Transport > Network Recommendations.' > <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-rosetta-stone-12.txt> as Informational RFC