Hi, I agree with the new texts. Thanks for the proposal. Best regards, Nurit
-----Original Message----- From: ext Adrian Farrel [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 8:21 PM To: Christian Vogt; [email protected]; Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon); [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Gen-ART Mailing List; Loa Andersson Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-requirements All, I propose the following RFC Editor note... Section 1 OLD Although both static and dynamic configuration of MPLS-TP transport paths (including Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) and protection capabilities) is required by this document, it MUST be possible for operators to be able to completely operate (including OAM and protection capabilities) an MPLS-TP network in the absence of any control plane. NEW MPLS-TP transport paths may be established using static or dynamic configuration. It should be noted that the MPLS-TP network and its transport paths can always be operated fully (including OAM and protection capabilities) in the absence of any control plane. - - - - Section 2 OLD This document specifies the requirements of an MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP). The requirements are for the behavior of the protocol mechanisms and procedures that constitute building blocks out of which the MPLS transport profile is constructed. That is, the requirements indicate what features are to be available in the MPLS toolkit for use by MPLS-TP. The requirements in this document do not describe what functions an MPLS-TP implementation supports. The purpose of this document is to identify the toolkit and any new protocol work that is required. NEW The MPLS-TP requirements set out in this section are for the behavior of the protocol mechanisms and procedures that constitute building blocks out of which the MPLS transport profile is constructed. That is, the requirements indicate what features are to be available in the MPLS toolkit for use by MPLS-TP. - - - - Please let me know if this is acceptable. A ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christian Vogt" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; "Gen-ART Mailing List" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 1:25 AM Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-requirements >I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) > reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see > 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. > > > Document..........: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-requirements > Reviewer..........: Christian Vogt > Review date.......: July 15, 2009 > > > Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits > that should be fixed before publication. > > This document specifies protocol requirements for MPLS in packet > transport networks. The document is of very good quality, with an > elaborate introduction explaining the background for this document. > > Two editorial nits that the authors should consider addressing prior > to publication of this document are the following: > > - The fourth paragraph on page 6, which is part of the introduction, > already specifies a requirement. I suggest moving this to section > 2, since this is the section that is dedicated to requirements. > > - The first paragraph of section 2 is a duplicate; it already appears in > the introduction. I suggest removing it from section 2. The > paragraph is important for the reader to understand the scope of the > document, and hence should retain its prominent position in the > introduction rather than the position in section 2. > > Best regards, > - Christian > > > > On Jul 2, 2009, The IESG wrote: > >> The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching >> WG >> (mpls) to consider the following document: >> >> - 'MPLS-TP Requirements ' >> <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-requirements-09.txt> as a Proposed Standard >> >> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits >> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the >> [email protected] mailing lists by 2009-07-16. Exceptionally, >> comments may be sent to [email protected] instead. In either case, please >> retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. >> >> The file can be obtained via >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-requirements-09.t xt >> >> >> IESG discussion can be tracked via >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag= 18021&rfc_flag=0 > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
