Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-l3vpn-acceptown-community-09.txt

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

Authors,

Fortunately Francis has not found any issues of substance.
Please fold these nits into the revision you are producing to address the IESG
Comments from last Thursday's telechat.

Thanks,
Adrian

> ________________________________________
> From: [e-mail] Behalf OfFrancis Dupont
> Sent: 09 February 2015 13:19:22 (UTC) Dublin, Edinburgh, Lisbon, London
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: review of draft-ietf-l3vpn-acceptown-community-09.txt
> 
> I am the assigned 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 wait for direction from your document shepherd
> or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-l3vpn-acceptown-community-09.txt
> Reviewer: Francis Dupont
> Review Date: 20150206
> IETF LC End Date: 20141208
> IESG Telechat date: 20150205
> 
> Summary: Ready
> 
> Major issues: None
> 
> Minor issues: None
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
>  - Abstract page 1: VRF and PE are not well known abbrevs
>   (cf http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-style-guide/abbrev.expansion.txt)
> 
>  - Abstract page 1 (style): I suggest:
>    that is distributed by the route reflector
>    ->
>    that the route reflector distributes
> 
>  - Abstract page 1 (style):
>    on the same PE as -> on the same PE than
> 
>  - Abstract page 1 (style):
>    (second) allowing the technique to be used -> and to be used
> 
>  - 1 page 2: same comment about "that is distributed"
> 
>  - 1 page 3: the abbrev PE (Provider Edge) must be introduced at its
>   first use (in the body of the document).
> 
>  - 3 page 4: i.e. -> i.e.,
> 
> Regards
> 
> [e-mail]