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-pce-p2mp-req-04.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 2010-01-22 IETF LC End Date: 2010-01-29 IESG Telechat date: unknown Summary: Ready Major issues: None Minor issues: None Nits/editorial comments: - in 1 page 2: in theory you should expend the VPN abbrev (it is not in http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-style-guide/abbrev.expansion.txt marked as well known even IMHO it should, so the "in theory") - 2.1.4 page 3: "unprocessable" is not in my dictonary (but it is known by google :-) - 2.1.9 page 5: (wording) it MUST be possible -> it MUST be allowed (IMHO the word "possible" doesn't go with a MUST) - BTW there are a lot of "it is ...". I am not convince it is a good wording in English (it is in French so I am half very used to see this and half prevented against this "gallicism"...) - 5 page 9: (question) for instance the R3/2.1.3 reason code is not here because it is defined in another document, isn't it? BTW if this document is draft-ietf-pce-pcep-p2mp-extensions-06.txt why is it not cited? - 7.1 page 9: PCE-P2MP-APP was published as RFC 5671 Regards [email protected] _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
