Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-mpls-ip-options-05.txt

[Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>]

Thanks, Miguel, for the comments.

I think we will go with Dave's resolutions as these are particularly small
points.

Cheers,
Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Smith (djsmith) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: 01 December 2010 22:03
> To: Miguel A. Garcia; [e-mail]; John Mullooly (jmullool);
> [e-mail]; George Swallow (swallow); Adrian Farrel; General Area
> Review Team
> Subject: RE: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-mpls-ip-options-05.txt
> 
> 
> Hi Miguel,
> 
> Many thanks for your review.
> 
> Regarding your nits/editorial comments:
> 
> >- Please expand acronyms at first occurrence. This includes: MPLS
> 
> MPLS is on the RFC Editor's list of acronyms that are "well known". So
> we're inclined not to expand it.
> 
> >- This is also very personal, but I think the presence of the word
> "Requirements" in the title of the draft may mislead the reader,
> thinking that this document just contains a collection of functional
> requirements but does not affect a protocol implementation. Since the
> draft proposes real actions at LERs, then I would suggest to remove
> "Requirements for" from the title.
> 
> The current title was specifically recommended by active members of the
> MPLS WG. So we're inclined not to change it.
> 
> Adrian - Let us know if you think otherwise. We'll change if required.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> /dave
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Miguel A. Garcia [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 6:36 AM
> To: [e-mail]; John Mullooly (jmullool); [e-mail]; David
> Smith (djsmith); George Swallow (swallow); Adrian Farrel; General Area
> Review Team
> Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-mpls-ip-options-05.txt
> 
> I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer
> for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
> http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq
> 
> Please resolve these comments along with any other comments you may
> receive.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-mpls-ip-options-05.txt
> Reviewer: Miguel Garcia <[e-mail]> Review Date:
> 2010-11-29 IETF LC End Date: 2010-11-30 IESG Telechat date: (if known)
> 
> Summary: The documetn is ready for publication as a proposed standard
> RFC.
> 
> Major issues: none
> 
> Minor issues: none
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> 
> - Please expand acronyms at first occurrence. This includes: MPLS
> 
> - This is also very personal, but I think the presence of the word
> "Requirements" in the title of the draft may mislead the reader,
> thinking that this document just contains a collection of functional
> requirements but does not affect a protocol implementation. Since the
> draft proposes real actions at LERs, then I would suggest to remove
> "Requirements for"
> from the title.
> 
> Other than that, the document looks good.
> 
> /Miguel
> 
> --
> Miguel A. Garcia
> [phone]
> Ericsson Spain