Hi Lucy,
I apologize for the late response. I somehow missed your mail when it came in
originally. Comments inline. I've deleted sections where I don't have further
comment.
Thanks!
Ben.
On Jul 15, 2014, at 3:18 PM, Lucy yong <lucy(_dot_)yong(_at_)huawei(_dot_)com>
wrote:
[...]
-- I suggest removing the 2119 language. Ignoring the general controversies
over whether informational RFCs should use 2119 language, I don't think it
fits for _this_ draft. In particular, all the small number of normative
language instances seems to be either statements of fact or restatements of
requirements that are defined elsewhere. These would all be better served
with descriptive language.
[Lucy] OK. I will change as you suggested.
The 2119 language has been removed, but you still have a reference to RFC 2119
in the reference section.
[...]
5.2 seems like the same "gap" as discussed in 5.1, just from a perspective of
CA role vs forwarding constraint. Handing around constraints vs roles seem
more like solution questions than requirements or architecture questions.
[Lucy] One is assigned the role at AC that impacts the forwarding; another is
to convey or advertise the assigned AC role. Since these may relate to
different techniques used in L2VPN, it is good to keep them in different
sections.
Okay
[...]
Nits/editorial comments:
-- 2.2, 4th paragraph: "Furthermore, MEF also defines AC roles. One
role is Root and another is Leaf."
Are these the same usages as defined in this document? If so, it might be
helpful to attribute these in the terminology section.
[Lucy] We define Root AC and Leaf AC in terminology and use them in the
framework. Will that be OK?
My comment was that _this_ document defines the roles, but also says that MEF
defines them. If those definitions are the same, then it would useful for the
definitions in this draft to mention that the usage is the same as defined by
MEF, or say in section 2.2. that MEF defines these terms the same way as this
draft.
[...]