Re: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-interop-05
Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Tue, 08 October 2013 22:49 UTC
Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A779321F9339; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 15:49:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.45
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, MANGLED_LIST=2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sETQt8ulR-7F; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 15:49:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shaman.nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 438C321F9DAA; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 15:49:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.9] (cpe-76-187-89-238.tx.res.rr.com [76.187.89.238]) (authenticated bits=0) by shaman.nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id r98Mn05g072035 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 8 Oct 2013 17:49:01 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-interop-05
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <69670F7146898C4583F56DA9AD32F77B215BDA7B@xmb-aln-x13.cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 17:49:00 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <BC9CEDBC-864B-48EC-81EE-EE776B0D8246@nostrum.com>
References: <69670F7146898C4583F56DA9AD32F77B215BDA7B@xmb-aln-x13.cisco.com>
To: Ali Sajassi <sajassi@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
Received-SPF: pass (shaman.nostrum.com: 76.187.89.238 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Cc: "draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-interop.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-interop.all@tools.ietf.org>, "gen-art@ietf.org Team (gen-art@ietf.org)" <gen-art@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org list" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 22:49:09 -0000
Hi Ali, Those changes would resolve my comments. Thanks! Ben. On Oct 8, 2013, at 5:13 PM, Ali Sajassi (sajassi) <sajassi@cisco.com> wrote: > > Ben, > > Thanks for your comments. I have incorporated all your comments in rev06 > of this draft. > > > On 9/23/13 1:29 PM, "Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com> wrote: > >> 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 resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments >> you may receive. >> >> Document: draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-interop-05 >> Reviewer: Ben Campbell >> Review Date: 2013-09-23 >> IETF LC End Date: 2013-09-24 >> >> Summary: Ready for publication as an informational RFC. >> >> Major issues: >> >> None >> >> Minor issues: >> >> None >> >> Nits/editorial comments: >> >> -- Abstract: >> >> Please expand H-VPLS on first mention > > Done. > >> >> -- section 1, 1st paragraph: >> >> Please expand VPLS on first mention. > > Done. > >> >> -- section 4, 3rd to last paragraph: "Different PBB access networks..." >> >> The previous and subsequent paragraphs say "PBBN access networks". Should >> this instance also say PBBN? > > Done. > >> >> -- section 4.3: >> >> 2nd paragraph says this scenario is applicable to "Loosely Coupled >> Service Domains" and "Different Service Domains". The 4th paragraph >> mentions "Tightly...". Does that mean the scenario also applies to >> "Tightly Coupled Service Domains"? (i.e. should it be added to the 2nd >> paragraph, or removed from the 4th?) >> > > Removed "Tightly Š" from the 4th paragraph. > > Cheers, > Ali >
- Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-in… Ben Campbell
- Re: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpl… Ali Sajassi (sajassi)
- Re: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpl… Ben Campbell