Ben, Thanks for your comments. I have incorporated all your comments in rev06 of this draft.
On 9/23/13 1:29 PM, "Ben Campbell" <b...@nostrum.com> wrote: >I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on >Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > ><http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > >Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments >you may receive. > >Document: draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-interop-05 >Reviewer: Ben Campbell >Review Date: 2013-09-23 >IETF LC End Date: 2013-09-24 > >Summary: Ready for publication as an informational RFC. > >Major issues: > >None > >Minor issues: > >None > >Nits/editorial comments: > >-- Abstract: > >Please expand H-VPLS on first mention Done. > >-- section 1, 1st paragraph: > >Please expand VPLS on first mention. Done. > >-- section 4, 3rd to last paragraph: "Different PBB access networks..." > >The previous and subsequent paragraphs say "PBBN access networks". Should >this instance also say PBBN? Done. > >-- section 4.3: > >2nd paragraph says this scenario is applicable to "Loosely Coupled >Service Domains" and "Different Service Domains". The 4th paragraph >mentions "Tightly...". Does that mean the scenario also applies to >"Tightly Coupled Service Domains"? (i.e. should it be added to the 2nd >paragraph, or removed from the 4th?) > Removed "Tightly Š" from the 4th paragraph. Cheers, Ali
