Hi, Thanks for the comments. Please see inline. Thanks, Nabil From: Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2012 11:34:54 -0400 To: "draft-ietf-ancp-pon.all@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <draft-ietf-ancp-pon.all@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: "gen-art@xxxxxxxx" <gen-art@xxxxxxxx>, 'IETF' <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Subject: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-ancp-pon-02 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>. Sorry for the late review due to IET meeting. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-ancp-pon-02 Reviewer: Roni Even Review Date:2012–4–1 IETF LC End Date: 2012–3–30 IESG Telechat date: Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an Informational RFC. Major issues: Minor issues: Nits/editorial comments: In section 4 ”However, the broadcast capability on the PON enables the AN (OLT) to send one copy on the PON as opposed to N copies of a multicast channel on the PON serving N premises being receivers” I think the “being” before the last word should be deleted <NB> are you OK saying: "However, the broadcast capability on the PON enables the AN (OLT) to send one copy on the PON as opposed to one copy to each receiver on the PON General editorial comment is about page breaks which can be better like section 7 title is at the end of a page and the text is in the next page. Also some of the figures and their descriptions are split between pages. <NB> will address that. |