Hi Elwyn-

  Inline.

On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Elwyn Davies <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, Eric.
>
> I checked over the new version and it addresses my previous comments
> just fine.  Thanks.
>

Cool!

> One trivial nit:
> s2.3.2: s/processesed/processed/
>

OK.

> I noted Adrian's point about draft-ietf-mpls-tp-psc-itu in the tracker
> and I guess the suggested change is reasonable.
>

I agree.

> If you are updating the text you could also fix:
> - The style is supposed to be 'RFC 6378' rather than RFC6378 outside of
> reference anchors.

OK

> - Sort out the punctuations of 'i.e.,' : Currently there is one with no
> comma (5, para 1), two with one comma and one with two commas (s6, para
> 10 - the quote from RFC 6378 where it has one comma); and of 'e.g.,' :
> Currently one with no comma (s4.3, para 2).

Sorry, I thought I caught all of those.

>
> I'll send an official telechat review when the review is scheduled.
>

OK.
thanks!




eric


> Cheers,
> Elwyn
>
>
>
> On Mon, 2014-04-21 at 16:20 -0400, Eric Osborne wrote:
>> Folks-
>>
>>   I have posted draft-ietf-mpls-psc-updates-04.  It addresses the
>> gen-art comments as well as other feeback received on this list from
>> the v-03 last call.  I also shuffled things around so that the section
>> order made more sense.
>>
>>   This draft elicited a comment and a warning from idnits.  I believe
>> they are both OK to disregard:
>>
>> 1)
>>
>>   -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC6378, but the
>>      abstract doesn't seem to directly say this.  It does mention RFC6378
>>      though, so this could be OK.
>>
>>
>> It's pretty clear that the document updates rfc6378.
>>
>>
>> 2)
>>
>>   == Missing Reference: 'RFC-ietf-mpls-psc-updates-04' is mentioned on line
>>      412, but not defined
>>
>>
>> This is a self-reference which needs to be updated with the RFC number
>> for this draft.
>>
>>
>>
>>   I expect this to be good to go, but given the amount of reshuffling
>> and new text I'd like to give folks one more shot at tweaking the
>> language.
>>
>> The meat of the work is in section 2.2.  Adrian, Elwyn - this contains
>> the majority of the changes based on gen-art feedback and other
>> discussions on the list.  Please give this the once-over at your
>> convenience.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> eric
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

Reply via email to