Hi Miguel, Many thanks for your review.
Regarding your nits/editorial comments: >- Please expand acronyms at first occurrence. This includes: MPLS MPLS is on the RFC Editor's list of acronyms that are "well known". So we're inclined not to expand it. >- This is also very personal, but I think the presence of the word "Requirements" in the title of the draft may mislead the reader, thinking that this document just contains a collection of functional requirements but does not affect a protocol implementation. Since the draft proposes real actions at LERs, then I would suggest to remove "Requirements for" from the title. The current title was specifically recommended by active members of the MPLS WG. So we're inclined not to change it. Adrian - Let us know if you think otherwise. We'll change if required. Regards, /dave -----Original Message----- From: Miguel A. Garcia [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 6:36 AM To: [email protected]; John Mullooly (jmullool); [email protected]; David Smith (djsmith); George Swallow (swallow); Adrian Farrel; General Area Review Team Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-mpls-ip-options-05.txt I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq Please resolve these comments along with any other comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-mpls-ip-options-05.txt Reviewer: Miguel Garcia <[email protected]> Review Date: 2010-11-29 IETF LC End Date: 2010-11-30 IESG Telechat date: (if known) Summary: The documetn is ready for publication as a proposed standard RFC. Major issues: none Minor issues: none Nits/editorial comments: - Please expand acronyms at first occurrence. This includes: MPLS - This is also very personal, but I think the presence of the word "Requirements" in the title of the draft may mislead the reader, thinking that this document just contains a collection of functional requirements but does not affect a protocol implementation. Since the draft proposes real actions at LERs, then I would suggest to remove "Requirements for" from the title. Other than that, the document looks good. /Miguel -- Miguel A. Garcia +34-91-339-3608 Ericsson Spain _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
