Re: [CCAMP] 答复: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-behavior-negotiation-09

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

Julien/Dan,

Some comments below (as coauthor).

On 1/22/2013 4:08 AM, Julien Meuric wrote:
> Hi Dan.
> 
> You're welcome.
> 
> I've added "very" on purpose, to emphasize what document the sentence 
> was referring to (i.e. the RFC mentioned at the beginning of that very 
> same sentence, not at the end of the previous one). It was just a 
> suggestion, it isn't mandatory to keep it if you feel it's more 
> confusing than clarifying. You may also check with a native English 
> speaker (e.g. the RFC Editor), who I'm not.
> 

IMO the use of "very" is 100% stylistic.  I don't think it causes any
harm or provides any substantive benefit.  It also doesn't matter to me
if it's included or not...

> Regards,
> 
> Julien
> 
> 
> Le 22/01/2013 08:21, Lidan (Dan) a écrit :
>> Julien,
>>
>> Thanks for the review, we will update the draft according to your comments.
>>
>> One comment needs your clarification:
>> - s/functions defined in that document/functions specified in that very document/  [repetition of "defined"]
>> For adding "very", is it a typo?
>>
>> For the reference [LMP-TEST], we will check with the authors of draft-cecczhang-ccamp-gmpls-g709v3-lmp, to see what's their intention.

Rather than reference an individual draft, my suggestion is to just drop
the whole sentence.  It doesn't really add much in any case.

The other comments all look good to me.  Much thanks!

Lou

>>
>> Thank you again!
>>
>> Dan
>>
>> -----邮件原件-----
>> 发件人: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] 代表 Julien Meuric
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft.
>> The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related
>> drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review. The purpose
>> of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more
>> information about the Routing Directorate, please see
>> http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/routing.html
>>
>> Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it
>> would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF
>> Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through
>> discussion or by updating the draft.
>>
>> Document: draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-behavior-negotiation-09
>> Reviewer: Julien Meuric
>> Review Date: 18 January 2013
>> IETF LC End Date: 21 January 2013
>> Intended Status: Standards Track
>>
>> *Summary:*
>> This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that
>> should be considered prior to it.
>>
>> *Comments:*
>> This document is clearly written and easy to understand. The defined
>> mechanism is simple and well specified.
>>
>> *Nits:*
>> Abstract
>> -Instead of "GMPLS networks", "GMPLS-controlled networks" reads more
>> accurate to me. It would also align on the phrase used in the
>> introduction. The resulting "Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching
>> (GMPLS)-controlled networks" may be checked with the RFC Editor.
>>
>> Introduction
>> - s/LMP node/LMP-capable node/
>> - s/functions defined in that document/functions specified in that very
>> document/  [repetition of "defined"]
>> - s/the message types from/the types from/  [repetition of "message"]
>>
>> Section 2.2
>> - s/MAY include, HelloConfig/MAY include HelloConfig/
>>
>> Section 3.1
>> - s/number of MBZ bits field/number of bits in MBZ field/
>>
>> Section 4
>> - s/[RFC4202] defined/[RFC4202]-defined/
>>
>> Section 9.2
>> - I tend to think that [LMP TEST] should now reference
>> draft-cecczhang-ccamp-gmpls-g709v3-lmp
>>
>>
>> Enjoy the week-end,
>>
>> Julien
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CCAMP mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
> 
> 
> 
> 
>