[L2tpext] draft-ietf-l2tpext-tdm-05

Ignacio Goyret <igoyret@alcatel-lucent.com> Fri, 01 August 2008 19:06 UTC

Return-Path: <l2tpext-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: l2tpext-archive-1@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-l2tpext-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DCF53A67B6; Fri, 1 Aug 2008 12:06:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: l2tpext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: l2tpext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CCB63A68B2 for <l2tpext@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Aug 2008 12:06:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cumiJmfXb-wX for <l2tpext@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Aug 2008 12:06:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ihemail4.lucent.com (ihemail4.lucent.com [135.245.0.39]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8DB43A635F for <l2tpext@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Aug 2008 12:06:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ihrh1.emsr.lucent.com (h135-1-218-53.lucent.com [135.1.218.53]) by ihemail4.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id m71J60VI018277; Fri, 1 Aug 2008 14:06:56 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from cliff.eng.ascend.com (cliff.eng.ascend.com [135.140.53.169]) by ihrh1.emsr.lucent.com (8.13.8/emsr) with ESMTP id m71J60rA006944; Fri, 1 Aug 2008 14:06:00 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from igoyret-c1.alcatel-lucent.com (dhcp-135-140-27-199 [135.140.27.199]) by cliff.eng.ascend.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m71J5x7h001725; Fri, 1 Aug 2008 12:05:59 -0700
Message-Id: <200808011905.m71J5x7h001725@cliff.eng.ascend.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 12:00:00 -0700
To: Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>
From: Ignacio Goyret <igoyret@alcatel-lucent.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.39
Cc: l2tpext@ietf.org
Subject: [L2tpext] draft-ietf-l2tpext-tdm-05
X-BeenThere: l2tpext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Layer Two Tunneling Protocol Extensions <l2tpext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2tpext>, <mailto:l2tpext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/l2tpext>
List-Post: <mailto:l2tpext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2tpext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2tpext>, <mailto:l2tpext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: l2tpext-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: l2tpext-bounces@ietf.org

Hi Sasha,
This last rev has been a big improvement. Thanks for your work!

I have just a few more editorial changes:

* Section 2, last paragraph (page 3)

OLD: There are two new AVPs for the Session Connection Messages.
                                            ^^^^^^^^^^ ^
NEW: There are two new AVPs for the Session Management messages.
                                            ^^^^^^^^^^ ^

* Section 2.1, page 4:

OLD:
     a) The specified value MUST be an integer multiple of
        number of DS0 channels in the corresponding attachment
        circuit.
NEW:
     a) The specified value MUST be an integer multiple of the
                                                           ^^^
        number of DS0 channels in the corresponding attachment
        circuit.

* Section 2.2, page 5:
OLD:  PT is the payload type expected in the RTP header.  Value of zero
                                                          ^
NEW:  PT is the payload type expected in the RTP header.  A value of zero
                                                          ^^^

* Section 3, 2nd bullet point under "CESoPSN basic" (page 7):

   s/teh/the/

* IANA Considerations:
  Just to make it clear to everyone involved, you may want to separate
  the lonely return code from the list of return/error codes and make
  two lists: a return code list (one item) and an error code list (with
  the 5 items).

The text looks reasonably solid to me, so I believe we are ready
for WGLC.

Thanks again for the effort that you have put into this work.

Cheers,
-Ignacio

_______________________________________________
L2tpext mailing list
L2tpext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2tpext