Hi Sue,
Sorry for the very late reply.
Thank you for reviewing this draft (again!). The comments you had for the -09 were addressed; the -13 version addresses your comments to the -11 version.
See inline.
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 2:15 AM Susan Hares via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Reviewer: Susan Hares
Review result: Has Nits
Authors: Thank you for continuing to refine this document.
Status: editorial nits:
#1 - Section 3.3 paragraph 1, last sentence
old/RMR is primarly intended for operation at the packet layer;
however, parallel links at hte lambda or fiber layer result in
parallel links at the packet layer./
question: Did you want to say /may result/ intead of /result/
Definitely better with "may".
#2 - Section 3.7 - Would be easier to read if you included a diagram.
#3 - Section 4.4 - Would be easier to read if you included a diagram
Rational for requesting diagram: You are explaining the technology
that requires additional TLVs in other protocols (IGPS)
Added diagrams to both the above sections.
#4 - Section 5 - (editorial only) This one section jars the reader
to ask "why am I bothered with this section."
I understand why you want to make this clear that this point.
However, in section 1 you lay out the protocols. Do you also want to
do this here? Either choice works technically. However this
document is dually focused: summary of RMR concepts to
those writing future specifications and RMR to those
desiring to install these solutions. Does this section help
those desiring to install these solutions to find the other document?
Deleted.
Kireeti
