Roni
Thanks for the nit-catching.
I assume you RFC5087 not as a reference means you quote RFC5087 not as a
reference.
Due to Adrian's DISCUSS we are going to have to respin after the LC;
I will fix all the nits you mention (and Russ' nit as well) at that time.
Y(J)S
From: Roni Even [mailto:Even(_dot_)roni(_at_)huawei(_dot_)com]
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 09:17
To: draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map(_dot_)all(_at_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org;
gen-art(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Cc: 'IETF-Discussion list'
Subject: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-14
Hi,
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-pwe3-oam-msg-map-14
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2011-1-23
IETF LC End Date: 2011-1-24
IESG Telechat date:
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a Standard track RFC.
Major issues:
Minor issues:
Nits/editorial comments:
1. The document starts with Contributors and acknowledgments section. I think
that this is not the major reason for the document and suggest moving these two
sections to the end of the document.
2. In the Abbreviations and Conventions section which includes the terminology
it may be good to reference the terminology from RFC3985.
3. Towards the end of section 7 and in the beginning of section 11 you RFC5087
not as a reference while in other places you have it as a reference. I think it
should be written as a reference.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf