Last Call comments draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info-22.txt
"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Thu, 06 November 2014 23:34 UTC
Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C44891A00D4 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Nov 2014 15:34:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cx7qKedeTG9A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Nov 2014 15:34:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (asmtp4.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.175]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5043E1A00CA for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Nov 2014 15:34:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id sA6NV7GS007634; Thu, 6 Nov 2014 23:31:07 GMT
Received: from 950129200 ([66.129.246.4]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id sA6NV3jU007613 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 6 Nov 2014 23:31:05 GMT
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call comments draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info-22.txt
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2014 23:34:48 -0000
Message-ID: <03e401cffa1a$42f945c0$c8ebd140$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: Ac/6Gjkg7lCGdwfCTlyCg4pU5IsmMg==
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1576-7.5.0.1018-21082.000
X-TM-AS-Result: No--6.588-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--6.588-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: q6ZjEcoG2KzZZ7BZ4UeyMFaOpp/sV5nVkKhujpdC6Je0Vg+MnSE2GC7s reQJNnc7APJewjr9Wbb5mkWKdiiBYFByM68PNMrk3/BiYwVwlIg6En2bnefhoLrfxlRjqBJ37bZ cYMiK6PexVEVJz0/aaDJ/VZG7vMw2oZjGns+FNQBUXvI6K7iraUCrr/LkAQ46POHYt0cCaIu0jB 43DGWYu4xhVHcjJTsKLh7nu0WqiUs6khM4kbcJpZ4CIKY/Hg3AtOt1ofVlaoIc4jS1nsD4HfoLR 4+zsDTtFAQvQYa7pIMPqeLyOX9KHGgg4h65z4e58NmfbkNC4M/8xJ5MEZoayg==
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/vnmX24h1KV8xtmj8wEGZ2sKQWSE
Cc: draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info.all@tools.ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
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: Thu, 06 Nov 2014 23:34:56 -0000
I already had an exchange with the authors about these comments, but I just want to formally drop them into the system. They're all relatively minor editorial points. Adrian === It would be nice to do a little post-processing to your text file to arrange the RBNF to make it slightly easier to read. Of course, the semantics would not change, so this is not essential: just nice. --- Figures 1 and 2 would benefit from a statement that "Rb" is a resource block. --- Figure 2 has a couple of stray '+' signs on the left-hand edge of the output matrix box. --- Page 10 <ResourceAccessibility ::= <PoolInputMatrix> <PoolOutputMatrix> is missing a '>' --- In 5.3.1 please s/draft/document/ twice. --- I wonder whether you want to add a reference to RFC7308 in Section 6.1. I don't think this makes any difference to the validity of the section, but it may be helpful when data models based on this information model are built. --- Should 6.5 also have a reference to ISIS TE? --- Page 15 You need to separate the RBNF from the end of the first paragraph --- The question for section 8 is: are there any security elements that need to be in your information model? Security qualities of links and nodes? Security capabilities of links and nodes? --- Section 3 has a reference to [G.7715] but this is not shown in the references section. --- [G.707], [G.709], and [G.Sup39] are listed as references, but not used. --- s/Author's Addresses/Authors' Addresses/
- Last Call comments draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info-22.t… Adrian Farrel