Subject: [CCAMP] AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-impairments

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 19:35:32 +0100

Hi,

My AD review of this draft has only yielded a few editorial comments and it is
not worth your effort to spin a new revision at this point. Can I ask you to
hold these comments and pick them up after IETF Last Call with any issues that
are raised during the last call.

Thanks,
Adrian

===

Please expand "PCE" in the Abstract

---

Please expand 3R in Section 1

---

Section 1

   In order to provision an optical connection (an optical path) through
   a WSON, a combination of path continuity, resource availability and
   impairments constraints

s/impairments/impairment/

---
                                                            
Section 2

s/Multiplexers/Multiplexer/

---

Section 4

Formatting got a bit munged.

---

Please decide "bit error rate" or "bit error ratio" and update the
document accordingly

---

Section 4.3

Can I suggest that you renumber the two options in Figure 3 as (d) and
(e) to avoid confusion with the options in Figure 2. Then you can also
make things a bit clearer by numbering the bullets.

---

From: Leeyoung <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 18:38:53 +0000

Hi Adrian,

Thanks for your quick review. Yes, we will hold your comments until IETF LC. 

Regards,
Young

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 1:36 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [CCAMP] AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-impairments

Hi,

Thanks,
Adrian

===

---

---

Section 1

---
                                                            
Section 2

---

Section 4

---

---

Section 4.3

_______________________________________________
CCAMP mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp