Re: [mpls] working group last call draft-ietf-mpls-tp-psc-itu-01

["Ryoo, Jeong-dong" <[e-mail]>]

Loa, thanks.

Jeong-dong


________________________________
From : "Loa Andersson" <[e-mail]>
Sent : 2014-01-29 15:50:07 ( +09:00 )
To : Ryoo, Jeong-dong <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Cc : [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, VIGOUREUX, MARTIN (MARTIN) <[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: working group last call draft-ietf-mpls-tp-psc-itu-01

Jeong-dong,

I think we are in agreement. For "WTR Expires" I think you understand
my concern, do what you think is useful and necessary. Maybe there is
Adrian's comment on the page 13 last line could be used to clarify
page 20 3rd line also.

/Loa


On 2014-01-29 12:24, Ryoo, Jeong-dong wrote:
> Loa, thanks for the comments.
> Yes, we need to clarify state/message(/timer) for WTR and others.
> One minor concern is that "WTR Expires" is used as the name of a local
> request in RFC 6378.
> I am not sure if it would be ok to change it to "WTR Timer Expires" in
> this document.
> More specifically, the proposal of the following two items needs the
> change of "WTR Expires" to "WTR timer expires" in the priority list
> in page 19:
> - page 13 last line - s/WTR expires/WTR timer expires (This item would
> disapprear once we take Adrian's proposal to change whole sentence.)
> - page 20 3rd line from the - s/WTR expires/WTR timer expires
>
> Best regards,
> Jeong-dong
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From : *"Loa Andersson"
> *Sent : *2014-01-28 22:58:10 ( +09:00 )
> *To : *[e-mail]
> *Cc : *[e-mail] ,
> , [e-mail]
> , VIGOUREUX, MARTIN (MARTIN)
>
> *Subject : *Re: working group last call draft-ietf-mpls-tp-psc-itu-01
>
> Folks,
>
> I've reviewed this document (actually fourth or fifth time) and I have
> very few comments, I think Adrian covered all mine in his review.
>
> I had something that I thought were spelling errors, but turns out to
> be differences between UK and US English. I'm pretty sure that the
> RFC Editor will set that right (if it isn't already).
>
> There is one thing that sometimes makes hard to parse the document,
> the abbreviation WTR stands for "Wait to restore", the thing is that
> WTR can be a state, a message or a timer (given that I understand it
> correctly). When I discussed this earlier the answer has been "Well
> it is confusing, but that is how it is done!"
>
> I think at places where it necessary e.g. WTR are qualified with
> state, message or timer. I found one place where want to add a
> clarifying "state", "message" or "timer".
>
> page 13 last line - s/WTR expires/WTR timer expires
>
> page 20 3rd line from the - s/WTR expires/WTR timer expires
>
> page 25 Note 4 s/WTR/WTR state
>
> page 25 Note 6 s/WTR/WTR state
>
> page 27 Note 11 s/WTR/WTR state
>
> DNR may be a state or a message, for clarification
>
> page 27 note 11 s/DNR./DNR state.
>
> The same exercise maybe be done for EXER [command, message] (actually
> I think that for EXER this is done correctly), but it might valuable
> to check for all abbreviations that has double meaning.
>
> I don't think it is necessary or even motivated to do more about
> this, but it might be a good if readers of the document were aware of
> this.
>
> I think the document - modulo addressing comments in wglc - is ready
> to go.
>
> /Loa
>
> On 2014-01-20 10:28, Loa Andersson wrote:
> > Working Group,
> >
> > This is to start a two week working group last call on
> > draft-ietf-mpls-tp-psc-itu.
> >
> > Please find the document at:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-psc-itu/
> >
> > The document editors has also supplied a "diff-list" between
> > version -00 and -01 at:
> > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls/current/msg11338.html
> >
> > ITU-T SG15 has advised us that this document is a necessary reference
> > for documents that is planned to go into the ITU-T approval process
> > from the SG15 meeting end of March / beginning of April. Editors,
> > authors and chairs has put in quite an effort to make this document
> > ready. The schedule is very tight.
> >
> > We are now doing several review steps in parallel
> >
> > - the normal working group last call, please send your comments to the
> > mpls working group mailing list ([e-mail])
> > - the working group chairs reviewed this document as part of the
> > mpls-rt review, normally we do a wg chair review before starting the
> > wglc, this review will now take place in parallel
> > - after the wglc and publication request there is an AD evaluation,
> > this will now also take place in parallel with the wglc
> >
> > The editors and authors are advised to try to resolve as many of the
> > comments as possible (on the mailing list) as they come in, but not to
> > post the new version of the draft until the wglc is closed and the
> > comments are resolved.
> >
> > This working group last call ends February 3rd.
> >
> > /Loa
> > for the MPLS WG co-chairs
>
> --
>
>
> Loa Andersson email: [e-mail]
> Senior MPLS Expert [e-mail]
> Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: [phone]

--


Loa Andersson email: [e-mail]
Senior MPLS Expert [e-mail]
Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: [phone]