Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-pwe3-arch-07.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 09:02:39 +0000

Hi Stewart, 

Sorry this comment comes so late as far as the architecture draft is 
concerned.

I recently reviewed the CESoPSN and SAToP drafts, and one comment I picked 
up was that they used the term "PSN-bound" for the traffic direction from 
the CE, through the PE and into the PSN. The architecture draft uses the 
term "PE-bound" for this direction. When I pointed this out to the 
authors, Sasha came back with the comment that traffic from the PSN to the 
PE is also "PE-bound". Therefore the term in the architecture draft is 
misleading and potentially ambiguous.

I tend to agree with Sasha on this, that "PSN-bound" is the clearer term 
to use. Is it too late to change the terminology in the architecture 
draft?

A quick search through the other drafts reveals no occurences in 
draft-ietf-pwe3-atm-encap-04, draft-ietf-pwe3-frame-relay-02 or 
draft-ietf-pwe3-sonet-03, and just  2 occurences in 
draft-ietf-ethernet-encap-05, so it should only have a small knock-on to 
other drafts. The term "PSN-bound" is used frequently in 
draft-ietf-pwe3-satop-01 and draft-ietf-pwe3-cesopsn-00, so in fact this 
would be the bigger change to make.

Cheers,
Tim