Hi Steward,
Thank you very much for your time and your valuable comments.
We have updated the document to address the nits according to your
suggestions.
Best Regards,
Huaimo
-----Original Message-----
From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 2:32 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]
Subject: Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-egress-protection-14
Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
Review result: Ready with Nits
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team
(Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF
Chair. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before
posting a new version of the draft.
For more information, please see the FAQ at
<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Document: draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-egress-protection-??
Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
Review Date: 2018-03-05
IETF LC End Date: 2018-02-27
IESG Telechat date: 2018-03-08
Summary: This is much improved since the earlier version I reviewed.
I do have a concern about the use of the term "egress" when I think that it
should be "egress node" or some such other network object.
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None
Nits/editorial comments:
The authors often use the term egress on its own when I think they mean egress
PE or egress node or egress LSR. If my English concern is correct, this should
be addressed before this goes to the RFC Editor else Auth48 will be a painful
process for all concerned.
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
