Subject: [Teas] <draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-resource-sharing-proc-04> - Review

From: Vishnu Pavan Beeram <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 16:17:42 -0400

Authors, Hi!

I did a quick review of the current version of
<draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-resource-sharing-proc>.

Couple of nits. Please see if you can take care of those in the next
revision.

- There are quite a few places in the draft where the term “transport
networks” is used. In some places it appears to imply “transport networks
of all types”, while in other places (like in Section 3) it means “non
packet-based transport networks”. Please see if you can make the usage seem
consistent (might have to make some edits in Section 3).

- Update the list of authors/editors in the first page as per the guidance
provided in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7322#section-4.1. (please see if
you can adhere to the "5 authors" limit; as an alternative, consider having
just one or two editors with others listed in the
Contributors/Acknowledgements section)

Regards,
-Pavan

---

From: Zhenghaomian <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2016 13:08:19 +0000

Hi, Pavan,

Thanks for the review.

We will meet with the authors and address the comments in the next version☺

Best wishes,
Haomian

发件人: Teas [mailto:[email-masked]] 代表 Vishnu Pavan Beeram
发送时间: 2016年7月10日 4:18
收件人: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
主题: [Teas] <draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-resource-sharing-proc-04> - Review

Authors, Hi!

I did a quick review of the current version of <draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-resource-sharing-proc>.

Couple of nits. Please see if you can take care of those in the next revision.

- There are quite a few places in the draft where the term “transport networks” is used. In some places it appears to imply “transport networks of all types”, while in other places (like in Section 3) it means “non packet-based transport networks”. Please see if you can make the usage seem consistent (might have to make some edits in Section 3).

- Update the list of authors/editors in the first page as per the guidance provided in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7322#section-4.1. (please see if you can adhere to the "5 authors" limit; as an alternative, consider having just one or two editors with others listed in the Contributors/Acknowledgements section)

Regards,
-Pavan