Hi Ali,
Those changes would resolve my comments.
Thanks!
Ben.
On Oct 8, 2013, at 5:13 PM, Ali Sajassi (sajassi)
<sajassi(_at_)cisco(_dot_)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" <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-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