Francis,
Many thanks.
We'll hold on to these comment in case we need to respin. Otherwise, I will
check during Auth-48 that the RFC Editor has caught them all.
One note in line.
Cheers,
Adrian
Comments: there are only some editorial comments, i.e., things which
should
be handled by the RFC editor:
- abstract page 2: from from -> from
- TOC page 3: for LSP_ATTRIBUTES Object -> for the ...?
- 2 page 5: are required -> are required to
- 5.1 page 8: LSP ([RFC3473]), to -> LSP ([RFC3473]) to
- 5.1.1 page 8: some other e2e LSP. -> some other e2e LSPs.?
- 5.1.1 page 8: in the Resv, -> in the Resv message,
- 5.1.1.1 page 9: in the Resv Label. -> in the Resv message.?
- 5.1.2 page 10: bandwidth, local TE -> bandwidth or local TE
- 5.1.2 page 11: a Path Msg -> a Path message
- 5.1.2 page 11: a PathErr with the error codes ->
a PathErr message with the error code?
- 5.1.3 page 11: I can't parse this sentence (commas?):
An e2e LSP traversing an S-LSP, SHOULD record in the RRO for that
hop, an identifier corresponding to the S-LSP TE link.
Yes. Commas badly placed.
An e2e LSP traversing an S-LSP SHOULD record, in the RRO for that hop, an
identifier corresponding to the S-LSP TE link.
- 5.2.3 page 14: PCE -> Path Computation Element
- 10 page 18: please add ", USA" after ZIP codes.
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
