Miguel, Many thanks for your review.
Please see below for some comments, prefixed by MB>. Regards, Matthew From: Miguel A. Garcia [[email protected]] Sent: 19 April 2010 09:20 To: Bocci, Matthew (Matthew); [email protected]; [email protected]; LEVRAU, LIEVEN (LIEVEN); [email protected]; Loa Andersson; Adrian Farrel Cc: [email protected]; General Area Review Team Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework-11.txt Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red 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. MB> All added. 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. MB> Added a copy of the Layer Network definition from RFC5654. We also propose adding a paraphrase of the definition for Network layer from RFC3031. 3) The first paragraph in Section 1.3.11 is incomplete: "(see " MB> Ok thanks. This was a broken reference, which I have removed (the two refences in the following bullets should suffice). 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? MB> Yes, it is somewhat circular. The objective here is to say that MPLS-TP should only use IETF defined PWs. Perhaps we can change this phrase to "MPLS-TP uses IETF-defined pseudowires to emulate certain services..." 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. MB> Agreed 6) In Figure 12, s/pcket/packet MB> Thanks 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. MB> Unfortunately this is a consequence of the way xml2rfc formats references, where the cross-reference is a complete ID name (in the first column). We'll work with the RFC editor to make sure this is better-formatted in the RFC. /Miguel -- Miguel A. Garcia +34-91-339-3608 Ericsson Spain _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
