Hi Donald,
Please see inline.
>> Also, in general, the document does expand some acronyms on first
>> occurrence, while it does not expand others. Can the authors verify
>>that all
>> the acronyms NOT expanded so called ³well known² acronyms?
>
>Can you point to one that isn't well known?
I didn¹t check - it was more a generic question whether you have checked
the non-expanded acronyms.
But, looking in the Introduction:
1) I see that you have expanded LAN, but not VLAN. Both are well-known, so
they do not need to be enhanced.
2) LSP IS a well known acronym, and LSP actually have multiple meanings
(perhaps they all mean the same thing).
LSP - Label Switched Path (LSP) or
- Label Switching Path (LSP) -- RARELY USED
- Link State Packet (LSP) or
- Link State PDU (LSP) (or Link State Protocol Data Unit)
3) FGL is not a well known acronym.
4) In the case of DRB you use the following format: 'enhanced (acronym)'.
In other cases you use 'acronym (enhanced)¹. Please be consistent whenever
you do write both the acronym and the enhanced name.
Having said that, DRB is a well known acronym, so I don¹t think you need
to enhance it. Still, as it may be a "less known well known², a reference
would still be useful.
...
>> Q4: The end of the introduction contains the following text:
>>
>> ³This documents obsoletes [RFC6439], updates [RFC6325], and updates
>> [RFC7177], as described in Appendix B.²
>>
>> That¹s all good, but I think it would be good to have a few words also
>>in
>> the Introduction, explaining exactly what is obsoleted and updated.
>
>OK, especially as it is more like it incorporates RFC 6439 to simplify
>things and reduce the number of documents that implementers have to
>look at.
That is also very good information. The details can be in Appendix B, but
I think it would be good to have a high-level description in the
Introduction.
>> Q5: The end of the introduction contains the following text:
>>
>> ³It also includes reference implementation details.
>> Alternative implementations that interoperate on the wire
>>are
>> permitted.²
>>
>> Is the last sentence really needed? I don¹t think an RFC can mandate the
>> usage of one specific implementation of the RFC.
>
>Well, I think the TRILL WG likes wording similar to that. It also
>occurs in at least RFC 6325, the TRILL base protocol specification.
Ok. I won¹t argue against it, I just think it sounds a little strange :)
But, could you then add a reference to the section describing the
reference implementation details, because I don¹t think it is explicit
anywhere.
Also, if the reference implementation details are different from the ones
in 6325 I think it would be useful to point out.
Regards,
Christer
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
