Hi Ali, Those changes would resolve my comments. Thanks! Ben. On Oct 8, 2013, at 5:13 PM, Ali Sajassi (sajassi) <sajassi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Ben, > > Thanks for your comments. I have incorporated all your comments in rev06 > of this draft. > > > On 9/23/13 1:29 PM, "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-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-interop-05 >> Reviewer: Ben Campbell >> Review Date: 2013-09-23 >> IETF LC End Date: 2013-09-24 >> >> Summary: Ready for publication as an informational RFC. >> >> Major issues: >> >> None >> >> Minor issues: >> >> None >> >> Nits/editorial comments: >> >> -- Abstract: >> >> Please expand H-VPLS on first mention > > Done. > >> >> -- section 1, 1st paragraph: >> >> Please expand VPLS on first mention. > > Done. > >> >> -- section 4, 3rd to last paragraph: "Different PBB access networks..." >> >> The previous and subsequent paragraphs say "PBBN access networks". Should >> this instance also say PBBN? > > Done. > >> >> -- section 4.3: >> >> 2nd paragraph says this scenario is applicable to "Loosely Coupled >> Service Domains" and "Different Service Domains". The 4th paragraph >> mentions "Tightly...". Does that mean the scenario also applies to >> "Tightly Coupled Service Domains"? (i.e. should it be added to the 2nd >> paragraph, or removed from the 4th?) >> > > Removed "Tightly Š" from the 4th paragraph. > > Cheers, > Ali >