Re: Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-addressing-06.txt

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

Good comments. Thanks.

> In the abstract and the introduction, the phrase "facilitate
> better interworking" reads weird to me. I'm not a native
> English speaker, but wouldn't "facilitate interworking" be
> more appropriate?

OK

> About the IGP terminology, in OSPF and IS-IS RFCs,
> "OSPF-TE" and "IS-IS-TE" terms are reserved for
> MPLS-TE extensions (RFC 3630 and 3784) while
> GMPLS ones (RFC 4203 and 4205) are rather named
> "GMPLS OSPF" and "GMPLS IS-IS". I believe the ID
> should follow this terminology more closely.

No objection.

> In section 5.1.1:
>   "An unnumbered TE
>   link end network-wide identifier is comprised of a TE Router ID
>   associated with the link local end, followed by the link local
>   identifier"
>
> The intent on (TE Router ID, link local ID) is clear to anyone
> familiar with the context, but I also feel -- due to my mother
> tongue? -- that this might also be misread as (TE Router ID,
> link local end, link local ID), which does not make any sense.
> However, considering this is a clarification document, maybe
> replacing "associated with" by "corresponding to" or just
> recalling it's a pair would do the trick.

Try...

An unnumbered TE link end network-wide identifier is comprised
of two elements:
- a TE Router ID that is associated with the link local end
- the link local identifier.

> In section 6.1.2:
>   "If the interface was intended to be used as an outgoing
>   interface, the path will be broken an may be impossible to
>   resolve."
>
> s/an/and/

OK

> "The path will be broken" looks like a postulate and needs a 
> clarification.

Yes, the sentence and the path are broken :-)

Try...

If the interface was intended to be used as an outgoing
interface, the computed path may be unsatisfactory and
the explicit route in the ERO may be impossible to resolve.

>"This a loose hop that identifies an interface should always
> identify the incoming TE link in the data plane."
>
> Something's missing or "This" should be removed.

s/This/Thus,/

Cheers,
Adrian