Subject: RE: [PWE3] Draft Charter nits

From: "Yaakov Stein" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 09:39:17 +0200

It is not intended that an emulated service will be
indistinguishable 
    from the service that is being emulated.  

I think a subjunctive form is required here:

    It is not intended for the emulated service to be indistinguishable 
    from the service being emulated.  

==================================================

    Emulation necessarily involves a degree cost-performance trade-off. 

I think there is a degree of superfluousness here.

    Emulation necessarily involves a cost-performance trade-off.

==================================================

   All emulated service definitions will include an 
   applicability statement describing the faithfulness of the 
   emulation. 

I think a requirement is better than a prophecy.

   All emulated service definitions must include  
   applicability statements describing the faithfulness of the 
   emulation. 

==================================================

   Switching, multiplexing, modification or other 
   operation on the traditional service, unless required as 
   part of the emulation, is out of the scope of the PWE3 WG.

Indeed there is an "or", but it is being used as a conjunction.
... and I never liked "out of the scope" either.

   Switching, multiplexing, modification or other 
   operation on the traditional service, unless required as 
   part of the emulation, are out of scope.

==================================================

  PWE3 will make use of existing IETF specified mechanisms
  unless there are technical reasons why the existing mechanisms
  are insufficient or unnecessary.

Clarity and frugality.

  PWE3 will utilize (exploit?) existing IETF-specified mechanisms
  unless these are technically deficient or unnecessary.

==================================================

  PWE3 will investigate mechanisms necessary to perform clock
  recovery and other real-time signaling functions.  This work will
  be coordinated with the AVT WG and RTP will be used where
  appropriate.

How about 

  PWE3 will investigate mechanisms necessary to emulate real-time
  signals, including clock recovery, handling of packet loss and 
  support for signaling.  This work will be coordinated with the AVT WG 
  as appropriate.

==================================================

  PWE3 will work closely with the L2VPN WG to ensure a clear
  demarcation is defined for where PWE3 stops and L2VPN starts.

for clarity

  PWE3 will coordinate closely with the L2VPN WG, and work towards
  a clear demarcation between the two WGs.

==================================================

  Ethernet, Frame Relay, PPP, HDLC, ATM, low-rate TDM and SONET.

We don't want non-Americans to feel left out, do we?

  Ethernet, Frame Relay, PPP, HDLC, ATM, low-rate TDM and SONET/SDH.

==================================================

  Specify a PW type that supports transparent carriage of IP payloads
  between disparate access services (e.g., ATM and Ethernet).

(I am sure this one originated with Stewart.)
Isn't carriage something that turns into a pumpkin at midnight?

  Specify a PW type that supports transparent transport of IP payloads
  between disparate access services (e.g., ATM and Ethernet).

==================================================

  Whilst a service provider may traffic engineer their network
  is such a way that PW traffic will not cause significant ...

their -> its ? (we don't want to say "his")
is -> in
is "traffic engineer" a compound verb?
will -> would (I don't know about whilst, but I believe while needs a
subjunctive).

  Whilst a service provider may employ traffic engineering
  in order to reduce PW-induced congestion ...

Y(J)S

_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3

---

From: Danny McPherson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 14:48:35 -0600

Yaakov et al.,
I've incorporated a couple of the suggestions in the text
below, but I'm purposely avoiding lots of rewording as a
result of individual semantical interpretations that vary widely.

Thanks for the careful review..  I'll send an updated rev
in just a bit and if folks have comments that are far
beyond semantics and personal preference please share them
- else let's just move this along.

-danny (reminded of why this was stalled many months ago
and not willing to let that happen again)