Hi Alissa, I have responded to the comments and will address them in the next version of the document. Thanks, Chandra. Juniper Business Use Only > -----Original Message----- > From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@xxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 11:52 PM > To: Theresa Enghardt <theresa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@xxxxxxxx>; last-call@xxxxxxxx; draft- > ietf-mpls-ri-rsvp-frr.all@xxxxxxxx; mpls@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-mpls-ri-rsvp-frr-07 > > Theresa, thanks for your review. I entered a No Objection ballot and > requested a response to your review. > > Alissa > > > > On Oct 30, 2019, at 5:42 AM, Theresa Enghardt via Datatracker > <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Reviewer: Theresa Enghardt > > Review result: Ready with Nits > > > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by > > the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like > > any other last call comments. > > > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > > > > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq > __;!8WoA6RjC81c!SkuUJld4mnZ7Lgt_BQiuz4Ukq2xtQsIdvAT3R2ra3YRCv1C_ > 1U0xLRuBAf2RjOU$ >. > > > > Document: draft-ietf-mpls-ri-rsvp-frr-07 > > Reviewer: Theresa Enghardt > > Review Date: 2019-10-30 > > IETF LC End Date: 2019-11-05 > > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > > > Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits > > that should be fixed before publication. > > > > Major issues: None. > > > > Minor issues: None. > > > > Nits/editorial comments: > > > > The abstract is hard to parse and could be improved by fixing the > > following nits. > > > > OLD: "Facility backup method allows" > > NEW: "The facility backup method allows" > > > > OLD: "The many-to-one nature of local repair technique" > > NEW: "The many-to-one nature of this local repair technique" > > > > OLD: "This document enumerates facility backup procedures in RFC 4090" > > NEW: "This document enumerates the facility backup procedures in RFC > > 4090" [or "several facility backup procedures", if not all procedures > > are enumerated here] > > > > OLD: "and hence make facility backup method refresh-interval > dependent." > > NEW: "and hence make the facility backup method refresh-interval > dependent." > > > > OLD: "The RSVP-TE extensions defined in this document will enhance" > > NEW: "This document defines RSVP-TE extensions to enhance" > > > > Are "facility backup method", "facility backup procedure" and > > "facility backup protection mechanism" all the same thing? Please > > consider using only a single term to avoid confusion. > > > > Please double-check the use of definite and indefinite articles in the > > rest of the document as well. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Gen-art mailing list > > Gen-art@xxxxxxxx > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen- > > > art__;!8WoA6RjC81c!SkuUJld4mnZ7Lgt_BQiuz4Ukq2xtQsIdvAT3R2ra3YRCv1 > C_1U0xLRuBBFf098s$ -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
