Hi Deborah, Thank you very much for reading the draft and providing the feedback!
On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 4:12 AM Deborah Brungard via Datatracker <[email protected]> wrote: > Similar to Alvaro's (F), I find a couple of sentences confusing. > > I think it would be very helpful to clarify the scope of this document (in > this document), especially as Alvaro notes, the same working group > is progressing a PS document with another solution. > > Examples: > > - Abstract: I find the sentence "attempts..complete" solution a bit in > conflict. > "Attempts" - either it does or doesn't. "complete" is questionable as it is > focused > on a set of use cases. Suggest: > > This document attempts to define a complete solution to this problem > /s/ > This document examines currently available mechanisms for providing a solution > to this problem for a broad range of enterprise topologies. > > - Section 4: > "The method described in the current document is functionally equivalent, but > it is > intended to be easier to understand for enterprise network operators." > I don't find the justification "easier to understand for enterprise network > operators" to be > convincing. Especially if there is already a PS document being progressed in > the same working > group. Hopefully the PS document will also be easy to understand for both > operators and vendors. > Suggest a better qualifier, even simply: > but it is intended to be easier to understand for enterprise network operators > /s/ > but it is based on application of existing mechanisms for the described > scenarios I've incorporated your suggestions! The diff: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming-09 The full text: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming-09 Please let me know if you believe your comments have not been fully addressed! -- SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
