Thanks, Miguel, for the comments. I think we will go with Dave's resolutions as these are particularly small points.
Cheers, Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: David Smith (djsmith) [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 01 December 2010 22:03 > To: Miguel A. Garcia; [email protected]; John Mullooly (jmullool); > [email protected]; George Swallow (swallow); Adrian Farrel; General Area > Review Team > Subject: RE: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-mpls-ip-options-05.txt > > > 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
