Thank you Miguel for the review, and Luyuan for taking the comments into account.
Jari On Mar 6, 2013, at 6:16 PM, Luyuan Fang (lufang) <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
