Hi Miguel, Thanks for your review and comments. The nits are fixed in 07 revision, we also acknowledged your help in the document.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-use-cases-and-design-07 Thanks, Luyuan -----Original Message----- From: "Miguel A. Garcia" <[email protected]> Date: Monday, February 11, 2013 1:21 AM To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Loa Andersson <[email protected]>, Adrian Farrel <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Cc: General Area Review Team <[email protected]> Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-use-cases-and-design-06 Resent-From: <[email protected]> Resent-To: Luyuan Fang <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Nabil Bitar <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Resent-Date: Monday, February 11, 2013 1:21 AM >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-tp-use-cases-and-design-06 >Reviewer: Miguel Garcia <[email protected]> >Review Date: 2013-02-10 >IETF LC End Date: 2013-02-11 >IESG Telechat date: > >Summary: The document is almost ready for publication as Informational >RFC, but has some NITS that should be addressed. > >Major issues: none > >Minor issues: none > >Nits/editorial comments: > >- The RFC Editor rules require to expand each acronym at a first usage. I >noticed that the draft uses Section 2 as a container of all the acronyms, >but most of these acronyms have already been used in Section 1. So, I am >not sure if the current text is acceptable to the RFC Editor. Perhaps the >authors should send them a question. One potential idea to explore is >leaving the first paragraph of Section 1 in there, and move the rest of >the Section to a new Section 3, whose potential title is "Background". >This will solve that problem. > >- It appears that Section is alphabetically ordered, but the term "NMS" >is misplaced. > >- Section 3.3.2, first paragraph. The text refers to "PSW/SGW or ASNGW)". >Section 2 expands "PSW" as Packet Data Network Gateway. I suspect the >acronym is wrong, because the Packet Data Network Gateway is commonly >abbreviated as PDN GW or P-GW. I have never seen PSW to refer to a PDN GW >or P-GW. > >/Miguel >-- >Miguel A. Garcia >+34-91-339-3608 >Ericsson Spain > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
