Russ,
Agree on both points. I have:
- removed the word "unique"
- moved Section 6 to an appendix
Thanks for the review.
Ron
-----Original Message-----
From: Russ Housley [mailto:housley(_at_)vigilsec(_dot_)com]
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2015 10:30 AM
To: draft-ietf-mpls-self-ping(_dot_)all(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Cc: IETF Gen-ART <gen-art(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>; IETF
<ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Subject: Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-mpls-self-ping-04
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-mpls-self-ping-04
Reviewer: Russ Housley
Review Date: 2014-09-25
IETF LC End Date: 2014-10-02
IESG Telechat date: unknown
Summary: Ready.
Major Concerns: None.
Minor Concerns: None.
Other Comments:
At the end of Section 1, the document says: "Each protocol listens on its own
UDP port and executes its own unique procedures." What does "unique"
mean here? What changes if "unique" is dropped from this sentence?
Would it be more obvious to the reader the purpose of Section 6 if it were
turned into an appendix?