Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-shared-ring-protection-05.txt

Hej Christer, As I mentioned in my previous email I have discussed your questions and comments with the co-authors of this draft. Please find our response in line [Huub]. We hope that we have provided the required clarification.

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-shared-ring-protection-05.txt

st not as a first step. > >I do not assume you did not know this, but your ACK message below does >not seem to include this step in your plan to address Christer's >comments... > >-- >Eric >(Responding as Document Shepherd) > >-Original Message----- >From: Gen-art

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-shared-ring-protection-05.txt

Hej Christer, Thank you very much for reviewing this draft. The minor issues and editorial issues you identified will be addressed by the authors. Best regards, Huub (on behalf of the co-authors). --- I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-psc-itu-02.txt

Hello Elwyn, Please find my response in-line [Huub2] To avoid any confusion I have snipped the parts that do not need further expanation. Minor issues: s1, next to last para: This document describes the behavior of the PSC protocol including the priority logic and the state

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-psc-itu-02.txt

. [Huub] this can be treated the same as a bit error in a PSC message. s10.3, para 2: s/they SHALL be disappeared./they SHALL be discarded./ [Huub] OK. Cheers, Huub. -- Huub van Helvoort, 海高明 Senior Consultant, 高级顾问 Huawei Technologies Ltd, 华为技术有限公司 - European Research Center, 欧洲研究所

Re: [Gen-art] [PWE3] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk-06

Hello Nabil, Considering your response: NB Please, see above. There are different contexts per above where the expanded terminology is applied. Are you suggesting still using Reverse Defect Indication per above where needed but not to abbreviate it? RDI as Remote Defect Indication part of

Re: [Gen-art] [PWE3] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk-06

Hello Nabil, You replied: I will folloup on the other emails. Just catching up in reverse order. RDI (Reverse defect indication) is what is used in RFC 6310 to indicate failure in the rverse direction from the failure, and this document is aligned with that. RDI is used to indicate that

Re: [Gen-art] [PWE3] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk-06

that there's no need for re-mapping. I think that it is easier to follow Y.1731. I agree that this is the best. These are the abbreviations used for MPLS-TP too. Best regards, Huub. On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Huub van Helvoort huubatw...@gmail.com mailto:huubatw...@gmail.com wrote: All

Re: [Gen-art] [PWE3] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk-06

Hello Nabil, Greg is almost right. RDI == Remote Defect Indication This is the abbreviation used in IEEE 802.1ag, Y.1731, G.707, G.8121 and rfc6428. Regards, Huub. can we avoid different interpretation of the same abbreviation (RDI): RDI Remote Defect Indication for Continuity Check

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk-06

All, Some nits that need to be fixed: ME Maintenance Entity MEG Maintenance Entity Group MEP Maintenance End Point MEP ME End Point or Maintenance Entity End Point MIP Maintenance End Point MIP ME Intermediate Point or Maintenance Entity Intermediate Point 3.2.