Subject: [Teas] Re: Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-teas-5g-ns-ip-mpls-16
From: [email-masked]
To: Tim Wicinski <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2025 14:03:48 +0000
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <teas.ietf.org>

Hi Tim,

Thank you for the review. 

The nits are fixed at https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/iddiff?url_1=https://boucadair.github.io/5g-slice-realization/draft-ietf-teas-5g-ns-ip-mpls.txt&url_2=https://boucadair.github.io/5g-slice-realization/tim-opsdir-review/draft-ietf-teas-5g-ns-ip-mpls.txt

Will leave the point about linking acronyms to the RFC Editor.

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Tim Wicinski via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
> Envoyé : lundi 10 février 2025 14:37
> À : [email-masked]
> Cc : [email-masked]; last-
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Objet : Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-teas-5g-ns-ip-mpls-
> 16
> 
> 
> Reviewer: Tim Wicinski
> Review result: Ready
> 
> 
> 
> Reviewer: Tim Wicinski
> Review Result: Ready
> 
> I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational
> directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being
> processed by the IESG.  These comments were written with the
> intent of improving the operational aspects of the IETF drafts.
> Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in
> AD reviews during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG
> chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call
> comments.
> 
> The document is dense and not knowning the subject matter in
> depth took a bit of time.
> I do have some minor quibbles, from a terminology perspective.
> 
> 
> ## Section 2
> 
> s/This document makes use of the following term/This document
> makes use of the following terms/
> 
> ##  3.3.1.  Customer Site
> 
> s/Customer Site/Customer Site (CS)/
> 
> 
> 3.3.1.  Customer Site
> 
> s/Customer Site/Customer Site (CS)/
> 
> ##
> 
> 5.1.2.  TN QoS Layer
> 
> s/TN/Transport Network (TN)/
> 
> 
> ## Provider Network
> 
> there are acronyms for many different facets, but not for
> "Provider Network" ?
> 
> ## Acronyms
> 
> I ended up generating a version of the draft which had links to
> the acronyms and that made it easier to get into.  Perhaps some
> suggestions for the RFC Editor?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.