I already had an exchange with the authors about these comments, but I just want
to formally drop them into the system. They're all relatively minor editorial
points.
Adrian
===
It would be nice to do a little post-processing to your text file to
arrange the RBNF to make it slightly easier to read. Of course, the
semantics would not change, so this is not essential: just nice.
---
Figures 1 and 2 would benefit from a statement that "Rb" is a resource
block.
---
Figure 2 has a couple of stray '+' signs on the left-hand edge of the
output matrix box.
---
Page 10
<ResourceAccessibility ::= <PoolInputMatrix> <PoolOutputMatrix>
is missing a '>'
---
In 5.3.1 please
s/draft/document/ twice.
---
I wonder whether you want to add a reference to RFC7308 in Section 6.1.
I don't think this makes any difference to the validity of the section,
but it may be helpful when data models based on this information model
are built.
---
Should 6.5 also have a reference to ISIS TE?
---
Page 15
You need to separate the RBNF from the end of the first paragraph
---
The question for section 8 is: are there any security elements that
need to be in your information model? Security qualities of links
and nodes? Security capabilities of links and nodes?
---
Section 3 has a reference to [G.7715] but this is not shown in the
references section.
---
[G.707], [G.709], and [G.Sup39] are listed as references, but not used.
---
s/Author's Addresses/Authors' Addresses/