This is an update of my review of draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-spc-rsvpte-ext-06, based on the newly released version 07. Updated Summary: Ready for publication. (I said draft standard the first time-but this is intended as a proposed standard, right?) Major Issues: None Minor Issues: None Nits/editorial comments: > -- Abstract, first paragraph, first sentence: > > I can't parse first part of sentence. Should "… connections are controlled …" be "…connections controlled…"? > No change--I still can't parse the first part of the sentence. Maybe the phrase "may independently exist" is the problem? > > -- 2nd paragraph: > > I don't see any mention of PathTear in 4.2.1.1. > I think I meant to say the first paragraph, not the second. But I still don't see the term "PathTear" mentioned in 4.2.1.1. > -- section 7.1: > > Is this intended to recommend IANA choose 25? No change. You say the bit number is (TBD by IANA) (25). Is the 25 a recommendation? (in which case, "(TBD by IANA, 25 preferred)" would be helpful. > > -- section 7.2: > > Do you mean to recommend a code of 35? > No change--same as above. Thanks! Ben. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf