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-framework-11.txt
Reviewer: Miguel Garcia <[email protected]>
Review Date: 19-April-2010
IETF LC End Date: 21-April-2010
Summary: The document is ready for publication as an Informational RFC.
Major issues: none
Minor issues: none
Nits/editorial comments: The document is well written. There are a few
nits that you may want to polish:
1) Add missing acronyms to the Terminology Section (Section 1.3). For
example, I am missing MS-PW, LER, CE, PDU, MAC, PSC, PSN, FCAPS, ACH,
MPLS BFD, VCCV, ME, MIG, DCN. I also recommend to order these terms in
alphabetical order, otherwise it is hard to find a term.
2) Perhaps you can add a short definition of Layer Network and Network
Layer in Sections 1.3.9 and 1.3.10, respectively (besides the reference
to the corresponding RFCs). But a definition would be nice to be here.
3) The first paragraph in Section 1.3.11 is incomplete: "(see "
4) On Section 3.4., the 4th paragraph has a self recursive sentence:
"A PW provides any emulated service that the IETF has defined to be
provided by a PW, ..."
Of bviously, the PW provides a service provided by a PW. Isn't there
a loop?
5) Figures 3 and 4 are so long that they expand beyond a single page. Can
you split these figures into two pieces each? At least, it looks like it
is possible.
6) In Figure 12, s/pcket/packet
7) There is something wrong with the format of the reference sections:
it seems that there are two columns, the left one being too wide and the
right one being too narrow.
/Miguel
--
Miguel A. Garcia
+34-91-339-3608
Ericsson Spain
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
