[Gen-art] Re: Gen-ART review of draft-malis-sonet-ces-mpls-09.txt

[<[e-mail]>]

Suresh,

Many thanks for your review. I can ask the RFC ediitor to do a TOC.  The obsoleted-by is a good idea, as is dropping the MAY NOT.  I'll re-run idnits to catch the long lines and pages. 

Cheers,
Andy 

----- Original Message -----
From: Suresh Krishnan <[e-mail]>
To: Malis, Andrew G. (Andy); [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wed Oct 24 00:00:41 2007
Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-malis-sonet-ces-mpls-09.txt

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for
draft-malis-sonet-ces-mpls-09.txt

For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication, but I have some
comments.

Meta-question
=============

Does this need a <Obsoleted by:RFC4842> note? Feels weird for me to ask
since this will have a later RFC number :-)

Minor
=====

* No ToC.
It would be really nice to have a table of contents for this document as
it is a bit long. Feel free to ignore this if you feel it is OK this way.

* Section 5.4.2

"As discussed in section 6.2, a CEM de-packetizer MAY or MAY NOT
  support re-ordering of mis-ordered packets. "

The term MAY NOT is not defined in RFC2119 and hence does not have any
predefined meaning. From my reading of this sentence, I did not
understand what the draft was trying to convey. And section 6.2 does not
contain any such discussion either. From my personal experience, when I
had to use "may or may not" frm plain english I would translate it into
a MAY.

Editorial
=========

There are a couple of long lines (72+ chars) and a few long pages (58+
lines). Please fix these.


Cheers
Suresh

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art