Thanks Francis,
Summary: Ready
Good to know.
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")
Yup
- 2.1.4 page 3: "unprocessable" is not in my dictonary
(but it is known by google :-)
I'll let the RFC Editor worry.
- 2.1.9 page 5: (wording) it MUST be possible -> it MUST be allowed
(IMHO the word "possible" doesn't go with a MUST)
I think the philosophy taught in French and English schools differs on this
point :-)
This document is describing the requirements to be applied to the protocol
spec.
The solution must make it possible to do this.
I'll let the RFC Editor correct this if it is wrong.
- 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"...)
Be convinced!
- 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?
You are correct in the document you cross-reference.
But the reason it is not specified here is because this is a requirements
document not a protocol spec.
- 7.1 page 9: PCE-P2MP-APP was published as RFC 5671
Yup
Thanks again,
Adrian
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
