I support draft-ietf-l3vpn-ppvpn-mcast-reqts-08 becoming an Informational RFC. I have read the draft and have attached a number of editorial changes/corrections as an rtf file with change tracking turned on. In addition I belive there are two places in the text that need further correction: Section 5.2.10 "with proper articulation" does the author really mean articulation? I think 'alignment' is a more appropriate term. Section 5.2.11 "Most notably a solution supporting only a subset of those requirements SHOULD be designed". Which requirements are being referred to by 'those requirements'? If it the requirements in the draft itself then I suggest the sentence is reworded to "most notably a solution supporting only a subset of the requirements in this document SHOULD be designed" Thanks Ben -- Ben Niven-Jenkins Network Architect, BT Exact E-mail: benjamin.niven-jenkins@xxxxxx Office: +44 (0)1473 648225 Mobile: +44 (0)7918 077205 Fax: +44 (0)1332 578827 The IESG <mailto:iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > The IESG has received a request from the Layer 3 Virtual > Private Networks WG to consider the following document: > > - 'Requirements for Multicast in L3 Provider-Provisioned VPNs ' > <draft-ietf-l3vpn-ppvpn-mcast-reqts-08.txt> as an Informational RFC > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and > solicits final comments on this action. Please send any > comments to the iesg@xxxxxxxx or ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists > by 2006-09-01. > > The file can be obtained via > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l3vpn-ppvpn-mca > st-reqts-08.txt
Attachment:
draft-ietf-l3vpn-ppvpn-mcast-reqts-08_nivenjb.rtf
Description: draft-ietf-l3vpn-ppvpn-mcast-reqts-08_nivenjb.rtf
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf