Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-rsvp-te-ext-03

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

Hi y'all,

[snip]

>> Does ‘GMPLS’ need to be expanded on first occurrence?
>> [Xian]: It is a pretty solid abbreviation for whoever needs to read for the
technical
>> content. But I think your suggestion is reasonable, just like we need to
expand to
>> RSVP-TE and LSP. Will do.

GMPLS is shown as an acceptable abbreviation to be used w/o expansion at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt

[snip]

>> The text in section 7 says:
>>
>>       “This section records the status of known implementations of the 
>>              protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of

>>              this Internet-Draft,…”
>>
>> I am not sure whether we should use “Internet-Draft” terminology in a
published RFC, and
>> I am not sure what time “at the time of posting of this Internet-Draft”
refers to. 
>>
>> Perhaps you could say something like:
>>
>>       “This section records the status of known implementations of the 
>>              protocol defined by this specification at the time of writing
the
>>       specification,…”
>
> [Xian]: This section will be removed when it becomes a RFC (see the editor
note put at
> the beginning of this section in the draft). So I do not think your issue
applies. I would
> prefer to leave it, avoiding using specification twice. OK?

As co-author of this I-D and of RFC 6982, I agree with Xian on this point.

Cheers,
Adrian
--
Read my latest...
Tales from the Wood - Eighteen new fairy tales
http://www.feedaread.com/books/Tales-from-the-Wood-9781786100924.aspx
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tales-Wood-Adrian-Farrel/dp/1786100924
Or buy from me direct.