RE: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-rosetta-stone-12

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

 



Hi,

I am having sever difficulty parsing all of the information from your comment.
And currently cannot see anything actionable by the authors.

> The draft does not list ITU in abbreviation,

Loa has answered why this is not necessary.

> there are many terminology not clear but more general definition.  I 
> prefer specific defining. 

This comment gives us nothing to go on! Which terminology do you find not clear
but is a more general definition? And why is this a problem?

You cannot expect the authors to fix or even discuss something if you do not
show them what you are talking about.

> Also many times refers to references to define without mentioning
> what was that definition,

What do you mean? Can you give an example and say how you think it should be?

> is that defined only in ITU and IETF cannot define its technology, or
> is it agreeing on a joint definition so IETF is just following ITU in some
> terms.

*This* document is seeking IETF consensus. If that consensus is reached all
definitions will be IETF definitions. If those definitions originate in ITU-T
documents, they are also ITU-T definitions. If ITU-T documents make normative
reference to IETF documents that contain definitions, those definitions are
ITU-T definitions.

Maybe I have missed the point of your comment.

Adrian





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