I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this I-D. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html>.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Summary: not ready The document has a real problem with its style: it is very unpleasant to read. Unfortunately this is not something the RFC editor can fix... Detailed comments/suggestions: - Abstract: This document describes transport -> the transport? - 1.1: remove trailing "." of PE definition - 1.1: I suggest to introduce here the L2TPv3 messages as imported abbreviations in the logical (i.e., not alpha) order. - 1.2 (NSP function): Ethernet packets -> Ethernet frames - 1.2: as VLAN tags are in some further cases 802.1q tags, I propose to cite 802.1Q the first time and use "VLAN" everywhere at the exception of 802.1Q specific places. - 2.2 c): must -> MUST? - 2.3.2: to indicate the Ethernet interface -> plural without "the"? - 3.2: may -> MAY? - (technical) 3.3: I am not convinced at all by the very last part (fragmentation/reassemble recommendation) because it is a layer violation and the goal (manage the issue at only one place as explain in L2TPFRAG section 5.1) is not explained. - 4: please introduce the AC abbrev - 4: the 802.1Q tag -> a VLAN tag - 4: preamble or FCS -> preamble and FCS - 4: IPSec -> IPsec (cf RFC 4301 introduction) - 4: For Ethernet VLAN PW, VLAN tag rewrite ...: can't parse this statement - 4: there is no TOS octet or QoS field in the IP header (look at RFC 2474?) - 4: 802.1Q CS and ... -> too many "and" (note that here 802.1Q is the right term) 5: should -> SHOULD ?? 9.1 L2TPFRAG: missing I-D name (draft-ietf-pwe3-fragmentation-10.txt?) Regards [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
