Ben,
Thank you for your comments. Please see below.
Best regards
Matthew
On 21/12/2010 22:13, "Ben Campbell" <ben(_at_)nostrum(_dot_)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-mpls-tp-uni-nni-02
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2010-12-21
IETF LC End Date: 2010-12-23
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as in informational RFC. I
have a small number of editorial comments that I think could further
improve the draft if there is another round of editing.
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None
Nits/editorial comments:
-- Section 1, 1st paragraph:
I suggest moving the expansion of MPLS-TP TP the first mention in the
body of the draft.
OK. I have moved this to the first use of the acronym in that section.
-- Section 1.1, 1st paragraph:
More conventional in what context? Useful for what purpose?
It is the convention to represent a UNI or NNI as a specific reference
point between functional groups e.g. MEF E-NNI (Figure 2 of MEF26) or ATM
UNI (ITU-T I.413), rather than to represent these as a span as in the
original diagrams in RFC5921. I propose to rephrase this sentence to:
"However, it is convention to illustrate these interfaces as reference
points."
With regard to your second question, I propose to rephrase the sentence as
follows:
"Furthermore, in the case of a UNI, it is useful to illustrate the
distribution of UNI functions between the Customer Edge (CE) side and the
Provider Edge (PE) side of the UNI (the UNI-C and UNI-N) in order to show
their relationship to one another."
-- Section 1.2, definition of UNI-N
I suggest expanding PE in the definition.
OK
-- Figures 1 and 2:
Is the meaning of the various line types described elsewhere? If so, a
statement to that effect with a reference would be helpful.
We have used the same convention as RFC5921. However, there is no key
there. I am not sure that a complete key would clarify the diagram as the
same line type is used to represent multiple entities due to the limited
umber of characters that are useful for ASCII drawing.
-- Figure 2:
I suggest expanding CP somewhere.
CP is expanded in the terminology section.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf