Re: [Pals] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-pals-mc-pon-04: (with COMMENT)

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Yuanlong,

On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 1:46 AM, Jiangyuanlong <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi Spencer,
>
> To be more consistent, we will use the same texts "Multi-Protocol Label
> Switching (MPLS) is being extended to the edge of operator networks" in the
> Abstract.
>

Thanks - that's much clearer (and I think it's more correct, too).

Spencer


>
> Thanks,
> Yuanlong
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Spencer Dawkins [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2016 3:30 AM
> To: The IESG
> Cc: [e-mail]; Andrew G. Malis; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-pals-mc-pon-04: (with
> COMMENT)
>
> Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-pals-mc-pon-04: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pals-mc-pon/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I was surprised by this text in the Abstract,
>
>    MPLS is being deployed deeper into operator networks, often to or
>    past the access network node.
>
> because I don't think what this is saying, matches text like this in the
> Introduction,
>
>    Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) is being extended to the edge
>    of operator networks, as is described in the the Multi-Segment
>    Pseudowires with Passive Optical Network (PON) access use case
>    [RFC6456].
>
> Is it "to the edge", or "past the access network node"? But if there's no
> reason to use a different description, you might consider using the same
> description in both places.
>
> Of course, you folks are the experts on how MPLS is deployed ... and maybe
> I'm just confused by which direction you mean when you say "deeper"!
>
> I am also interested in resolution of Stephen's Discuss.
>
>
>