Brian, Thanks, your comments are much appreciated.
Cheers, Andy On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 11:30 PM, Brian Carpenter < brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote: > Reviewer: Brian Carpenter > Review result: Ready with Nits > > Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-06 > > 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 treat these comments just > like any other last call comments. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-06.txt > Reviewer: Brian Carpenter > Review Date: 2018-06-12 > IETF LC End Date: 2018-06-15 > IESG Telechat date: 2018-06-21 > > Summary: Ready with nits > -------- > > Comments: > --------- > > This (with RFC4928) is a wonderful example of why layer violations are a > Bad Thing. > > Nits: > ----- > > > 1. Introduction > ... > > This document recommends the use of the Ethernet pseudowire control > > word in all but exceptional circumstances. > > That's wrong, it *mandates* this usage with a MUST (first paragraph of > section 4). > > > 3. Background > ... > > A recent posting on the Nanog email list has highlighted this > > problem: > > > > https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2016-December/089395.html > > No, it's no longer recent. How about: > > For example, a posting on the Nanog email list highlighted this > problem: > > > 7. Operational Considerations > > > > CW presence on the PW is controlled by the configuration and may be > > subject to default operational mode of not being enabled. > > That sentence is hard to parse. Try this: > > A configuration switch might determine whether the CW is used on the > PW. > The default configuration might be to disable use of the CW. > >
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Genfirstname.lastname@example.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art