Re: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-interop-05
Hi Ali, Those changes would resolve my comments. Thanks! Ben. On Oct 8, 2013, at 5:13 PM, Ali Sajassi (sajassi) saja...@cisco.com wrote: 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
Re: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-interop-05
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
Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-interop-05
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 -- section 1, 1st paragraph: Please expand VPLS on first mention. -- 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? -- 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?)
