Subject: Re: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-rosetta-stone-12.txt>

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 09:48:32 +0100

Thanks for this document which was surprisingly readable.

I have a number of comments from my AD review, but they are all
trivial and can be handled as IETF last call comments.

Thanks,
Adrian

---

Nurit will want to change the minor details or her affiliation.

---

Abstract
Expand MPLS-TP and PW on first use.
Expand MS
s/recommendations/Recommendations/  >>> Apply throughout document
s/nor/or/

---

Section 1

s/telecommunication/Telecommunication/

---

Section 1.2

s/Administration and Maintenance/Administration, and Maintenance/

---

Section 3.4

s/APPENDIX/Appendix/

---

Section 3.5

Please expand PW

---

Section 3.7

One might ask whether a co-routed bidirectional path that traverses a
LAG or a link bundle uses the same component links in both directions.

---

Section 3.8 could probably usefully mention routing along with 
signaling.

---

Section 3.11

s/physical channels/a physical channel/

---

Section 3.16

Please expand LSR

---

One paragraph in 3.17 is a bit wild.

   Therefore, in the context of MPLS-TP LSP or PW Maintenance Entity
   (defined below) LERs and T-PEs can be MEPs while LSRs and S-PEs can
   be MIPs. In the case of Tandem Connection Maintenance Entity
   (defined below), LSRs and S-PEs can be either MEPs or MIPs.

s/context of/context of a/

"PW Maintenance Entity" is not defined below (I think).

Please expand LER

I don't find the definition of "Tandem Connection Maintenance Entity"
Maybe you could say
...the case of a Maintenance Entity for a Tandem Connection (defined below)

Please expand S-PE

---

Section 3.19
Penultimate paragraph
Second instance  s/(e.g. count packets)./(e.g. counts packets)./

---

Section 3.23

s/described in three ways:/described in one of three ways:/
s/Sub-Path Maintenance Element, and/Sub-Path Maintenance Element, or/
s/as a Tandem Connections./as a Tandem Connection./

---

Section 3.23.2  Section header

s/(SMPE):/(SPME):/

---

Section 3.35

The use of pipe ("|") and curly braces ("{" and "}") could usefully be
replaced with English language.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:ietf-announce-
> [email-masked]] On Behalf Of The IESG
> Sent: 02 October 2013 22:45
> To: IETF-Announce
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-rosetta-stone-12.txt> (A Thesaurus for
the
> Terminology used in Multiprotocol Label Switching Transport Profile (MPLS-TP)
> drafts/RFCs and ITU-T's Transport Network Recommendations.) to Informational
> RFC
> 
> 
> The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG
> (mpls) to consider the following document:
> - 'A Thesaurus for the Terminology used in Multiprotocol Label Switching
>    Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) drafts/RFCs and ITU-T's Transport
>    Network Recommendations.'
>   <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-rosetta-stone-12.txt> as Informational RFC

---

From: Huub helvoort <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 13:22:14 +0000

Hello Adrian,

Thnak you for your feedback/review.

You write: "can be handled as IETF last call comments",
so there is no need for revision 13 then.

Cheers, Huub.

--
================================================================
Always remember that you are unique...just like everyone else...

________________________________________
From: [email-masked] [[email-masked]] on behalf of Adrian Farrel [[email-masked]]
Sent: 03 October 2013 10:48
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-rosetta-stone-12.txt>

Thanks,
Adrian

---

---

Abstract

---

Section 1

---

Section 1.2

---

Section 3.4

s/APPENDIX/Appendix/

---

Section 3.5

Please expand PW

---

Section 3.7

---

---

Section 3.11

---

Section 3.16

Please expand LSR

---

Please expand LER

Please expand S-PE

---

Section 3.19
Penultimate paragraph

---

Section 3.23

---

s/(SMPE):/(SPME):/

---

Section 3.35

the