Thanks for the quick response. Also see below. I elided sections that I think have been addressed. On Dec 22, 2010, at 5:44 AM, Bocci, Matthew (Matthew) wrote: > Ben, > > Thank you for your comments. Please see below. > > Best regards > > Matthew > > On 21/12/2010 22:13, "Ben Campbell" <ben@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > [...] >> >> -- 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." > > WFM > >> >> -- 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. Ah, I agree it probably would be too much to add a complete key, and on re-reading, I see most of the lines are sufficiently labeled. But I am still confused by a few of them. For example, in under the UNI column, I see both a single and double dashed (equal signs) line under the label of "Client Traffic Flows". Should I assume those to just be two arbitrary flows where the line type just helps me follow a particular flow, or are they somehow different classes of flows? On the right side of the same diagram, I see 3 Transport Paths with an outer set of arrows, and the lower two having another arrow between. Should the outer arrows be interpreted as a "channel" over which client traffic flows? > >> >> -- Figure 2: >> >> I suggest expanding CP somewhere. > > CP is expanded in the terminology section. So it is, right there at the top. (I could have sworn I did a text search for that--looks like the search option in the iPad tool I use for reviewing drafts is not reliable :-|) > > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf