Thanks! > On Jun 19, 2018, at 5:35 AM, Stewart Bryant <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Alissa > > Yes, we will address all review comments that we receive. > > - Stewart > > > On 18/06/2018 18:44, Alissa Cooper wrote: >> Brian, thanks for your review. Andy, thanks for your response; hopefully it >> means Brian’s comments will be addressed? I have entered a No Objection >> ballot. >> >> Alissa >> >>> On Jun 12, 2018, at 1:50 PM, Andrew G. Malis <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> Brian, >>> >>> Thanks, your comments are much appreciated. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Andy >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 11:30 PM, Brian Carpenter >>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> 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 >>> <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 >>> > <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 >>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art >>> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art> >> >
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
