Thanks for the quick response. Also see below. I elided sections that I think
have been addressed.
On Dec 22, 2010, at 5:44 AM, Bocci, Matthew (Matthew) wrote:
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:
[...]
-- 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."
WFM
-- 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.
Ah, I agree it probably would be too much to add a complete key, and on
re-reading, I see most of the lines are sufficiently labeled. But I am still
confused by a few of them. For example, in under the UNI column, I see both a
single and double dashed (equal signs) line under the label of "Client Traffic
Flows". Should I assume those to just be two arbitrary flows where the line
type just helps me follow a particular flow, or are they somehow different
classes of flows?
On the right side of the same diagram, I see 3 Transport Paths with an outer
set of arrows, and the lower two having another arrow between. Should the outer
arrows be interpreted as a "channel" over which client traffic flows?
-- Figure 2:
I suggest expanding CP somewhere.
CP is expanded in the terminology section.
So it is, right there at the top. (I could have sworn I did a text search for
that--looks like the search option in the iPad tool I use for reviewing drafts
is not reliable :-|)
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf