Ben, Thank you for your comments. Please see below. Best regards Matthew On 21/12/2010 22:13, "Ben Campbell" <ben@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >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>. > >Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you >may receive. > >Document: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-uni-nni-02 >Reviewer: Ben Campbell >Review Date: 2010-12-21 >IETF LC End Date: 2010-12-23 >IESG Telechat date: (if known) > > >Summary: This draft is ready for publication as in informational RFC. I >have a small number of editorial comments that I think could further >improve the draft if there is another round of editing. > >Major issues: None > >Minor issues: None > >Nits/editorial comments: > >-- Section 1, 1st paragraph: > >I suggest moving the expansion of MPLS-TP TP the first mention in the >body of the draft. OK. I have moved this to the first use of the acronym in that section. > >-- Section 1.1, 1st paragraph: > >More conventional in what context? Useful for what purpose? It is the convention to represent a UNI or NNI as a specific reference point between functional groups e.g. MEF E-NNI (Figure 2 of MEF26) or ATM UNI (ITU-T I.413), rather than to represent these as a span as in the original diagrams in RFC5921. I propose to rephrase this sentence to: "However, it is convention to illustrate these interfaces as reference points." With regard to your second question, I propose to rephrase the sentence as follows: "Furthermore, in the case of a UNI, it is useful to illustrate the distribution of UNI functions between the Customer Edge (CE) side and the Provider Edge (PE) side of the UNI (the UNI-C and UNI-N) in order to show their relationship to one another." > >-- Section 1.2, definition of UNI-N > >I suggest expanding PE in the definition. OK > >-- Figures 1 and 2: > >Is the meaning of the various line types described elsewhere? If so, a >statement to that effect with a reference would be helpful. We have used the same convention as RFC5921. However, there is no key there. I am not sure that a complete key would clarify the diagram as the same line type is used to represent multiple entities due to the limited umber of characters that are useful for ASCII drawing. > >-- Figure 2: > >I suggest expanding CP somewhere. CP is expanded in the terminology section. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf