Hi, Christer, Thank you for the detailed review. Please see my reply inline:
Cheers, Xian From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 2015年10月29日 17:21 To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-rsvp-te-ext-03 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> Document: draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-rsvp-te-ext-03.txt Reviewer: Christer Holmberg Review Date: 29 October 2015 IETF LC End Date: 9 November 2015 IETF Telechat Date: N/A Summary: The document is well written, and almost ready for publication. However, I have a few editorial issue that I’d like the authors to address. Major Issues: None Minor Issues: None Editorial Issues: Q1: ‘RSVP-TE’ is expanded in the Abstract, but not in the main document. Please expand on first occurrence also in the Introduction (last paragraph). Same comment applies to ‘LSP’. [Xian]: Accepted. Q2: There is no reference for RSVP-TE. [Xian]: Accepted. Will add. Q3: Would it be possible to replace the last paragraph of the Introduction with the Abstract text? [Xian]: they are essentially the same, but the last paragraph in introduction covers the draft structure better. Unless you strongly object, I would like to keep it unchanged. OK? Q4: Does ‘GMPLS’ need to be expanded on first occurrence? [Xian]: It is a pretty solid abbreviation for whoever needs to read for the technical content. But I think your suggestion is reasonable, just like we need to expand to RSVP-TE and LSP. Will do. Q5: There is no reference to ‘GMPLS’ in sections 1 and 3. [Xian]: Point taken. Will add. Q6: The text in section 7 says: “This section records the status of known implementations of the protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this Internet-Draft,…” I am not sure whether we should use “Internet-Draft” terminology in a published RFC, and I am not sure what time “at the time of posting of this Internet-Draft” refers to. Perhaps you could say something like: “This section records the status of known implementations of the protocol defined by this specification at the time of writing the specification,…” [Xian]: This section will be removed when it becomes a RFC (see the editor note put at the beginning of this section in the draft). So I do not think your issue applies. I would prefer to leave it, avoiding using specification twice. OK?
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
