Hi Donald, Thank you very much for your review. Tony > Minor Issues: > These are all very minor issues: > > Section 2.1 says "... this framework does not place any limitations on an MNA solution." seems a little too strong. If this is just in the context of scope combinations from the earlier part of that sentence, suggest saying "... this framework does not limit the combinations in an MNA solution." Ok. > Section 2.2 says "Other alternatives may also be possible and should be specified by the solution." which could be misinterpreted to imply that a solution should specify some other alternative. Suggest replacing with "Other alternatives may also be possible. The solution should specify the alternative adopted." or the like. Sure. > Section 2.3 final one sentence paragraph has too many "it"s in it for my taste. Is this just saying that a node that does not support MNA does not make use of MNA? Yes. I’ll try to reword. > Section 7, 2nd paragraph: I think the second sentence needs a little more qualification. Perhaps change to "... prevents link traffic observation covertly acquiring the label stack ..." Ok > Nits: > Section 5 first line, it is not the actions that must contain the items in the list but the document, so replace "and" with "that" or the like. Agreed. -- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
