Re: [Teas] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-egress-protection-14

[Huaimo Chen <[e-mail]>]

Hi Steward,

    Thank you very much for your time and your valuable comments.
    We have updated the document to address the nits according to your suggestions.

Best Regards,
Huaimo
-----Original Message-----
From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 2:32 PM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-egress-protection-14

Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
Review result: Ready with Nits

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-egress-protection-??
Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
Review Date: 2018-03-05
IETF LC End Date: 2018-02-27
IESG Telechat date: 2018-03-08

Summary: This is much improved since the earlier version I reviewed.

I do have a concern about the use of the term "egress" when I think that it should be "egress node" or some such other network object.

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments:

The authors often use the term egress on its own when I think they mean egress PE or egress node or egress LSR. If my English concern is correct, this should be addressed before this goes to the RFC Editor else  Auth48 will be a painful process for all concerned.