I support draft-ietf-l3vpn-ppvpn-mcast-reqts-08 becoming an
Informational RFC. I have read the draft and have attached a number of
editorial changes/corrections as an rtf file with change tracking turned
on.
In addition I belive there are two places in the text that need further
correction:
Section 5.2.10 "with proper articulation" does the author really mean
articulation? I think 'alignment' is a more appropriate term.
Section 5.2.11 "Most notably a solution supporting only a subset of
those requirements SHOULD be designed". Which requirements are being
referred to by 'those requirements'? If it the requirements in the
draft itself then I suggest the sentence is reworded to "most notably a
solution supporting only a subset of the requirements in this document
SHOULD be designed"
Thanks
Ben
--
Ben Niven-Jenkins
Network Architect, BT Exact
E-mail: benjamin(_dot_)niven-jenkins(_at_)bt(_dot_)com
Office: +44 (0)1473 648225
Mobile: +44 (0)7918 077205
Fax: +44 (0)1332 578827
The IESG <mailto:iesg-secretary(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Layer 3 Virtual
Private Networks WG to consider the following document:
- 'Requirements for Multicast in L3 Provider-Provisioned VPNs '
<draft-ietf-l3vpn-ppvpn-mcast-reqts-08.txt> as an Informational RFC
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and
solicits final comments on this action. Please send any
comments to the iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org or ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing
lists
by 2006-09-01.
The file can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l3vpn-ppvpn-mca
st-reqts-08.txt
draft-ietf-l3vpn-ppvpn-mcast-reqts-08_nivenjb.rtf
Description: draft-ietf-l3vpn-ppvpn-mcast-reqts-08_nivenjb.rtf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf