Thanks Dhruv, A couple more typos I noticed: Section 3: "a consistent ways of" should be "... way of" Section 4.1.1.1: "the encoding for path delay metric value" should be "... the path delay metric value"
See also [JEH2] inline below. Cheers Jon From: Dhruv Dhody [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 24 June 2016 11:25 To: Jonathan Hardwick <[email protected]>; [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: RE: Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware-09 Hi Jon, Thank you fixing the grammatical issues with the document. One change I would like to make is to the term "Fractional Percentage Link Loss" to just "Fractional Link Loss". [JEH2] OK. But in section 4.3 you actually changed it to "percentage link loss". Also, in 4.1.3 and 4.3, I think the abbreviation should be FL(L) not FPL(L)? I read the P in FPL as "Percentage". <snip> What do you think? [JEH] I think fine. Although rather than "network performance information" could we have "network performance metrics"? [Dhruv2] I am worried that might be seen as excluding the bandwidth utilization related optimization criteria. I wanted to use a generic term and thus "network performance information". [JEH2] I'm only concerned that the existing sentence does not scan well. How about "3. A PCC must be able to request that a PCE optimizes a path using any network performance criteria." <snip>
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
