Thanks Russ, That looks reasonable and tractable. Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Russ Housley > Sent: 09 November 2014 22:42 > To: IETF; ccamp-chairs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa- > info.all@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: General Area Review Team > Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info-22.txt > > 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-ccamp-rwa-info-22 > Reviewer: Russ Housley > Review Date: 2014-11-09 > IETF LC End Date: 2014-11-27 > IESG Telechat date: unknown > > Summary: Almost ready; a few minor things to clear up. > > Major Concerns: > > None. > > Minor Concerns: > > In section 3, please add a sentence or two that explains switching > subsystem and line subsystem. The definitions might be best appear in > Section 2. I checked in RFC 6163, but I did not find a description of > these terms there. > > Other Comments: > > Section 1 begins with: > > The purpose of the following information model for WSONs ... > > In my opinion, it would be better to say something like: > > The purpose of the WSONs information model described in this > document ... > > Likewise, in section 3, it says: > > The following WSON RWA information model ... > > In my opinion, it would be better to say something like: > > The WSON RWA information model in this document ... > > In section 5.1, 3rd paragraph, it says: > > ... Since not all input ports > can necessarily reach each resource block, the model starts with a > resource pool input matrix RI(i,p) = {0,1} whether input port i can > reach potentially reach resource block p. > > s/reach potentially reach/potentially reach/ >