Re: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-interop-05

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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






[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]