The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2004-Mar> msg00107



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]  
  [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index]

AD-review comments on draft-ietf-mpls-nodeid-subobject-02.txt

  • From: Jean Philippe Vasseur <jvasseur@cisco.com>
  • Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 18:24:24 -0500
  • Cc: MPLS WG <mpls@UU.NET>, rtg-dir@ietf.org
  • X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by cell.onecall.net id i2PNl3n24534

Thanks a lot Alex: I'll quickly address the comments and post another revision.

thanks.

JP.

At 01:58 PM 3/25/2004 -0800, Alex Zinin wrote:

>Folks-
>
>  Please find below my comments on this document.
>
>  Substantial:
>
>    In section 3, in the following para--
>
>    > An implementation MAY either decide to support of one the following
>    > options:
>
>    --not clear language and not clear what the "MAY" specifies.
>    There should be a description of what implementation supporting this
>    spec MUST do so that other nodes can leverage that.
>
>  Editorial:
>
>   - poor general formatting, affects readability, please fix
>
>   - Section 1 "Terminology":
>       "CSPF" defined, but not used
>       ditto for "NHOP bypass tunnel"
>       ditto for "NNHOP bypass tunnel"
>
>   - Section 2:
>
>       The illustration is not captioned, though references to Figure 1 are
>       made in the document.
>
>   - Section 3. Non-ASCII characters in the following para:
>  >
>  > As mentioned above, the limitation that we need to address is the
>  > generality of the contents of the RRO IPv4 and IPv6 subobjects, as
>  > defined in [RSVP-TE].[RFC3209] defines the IPv4 and IPv6 RRO subobjects
>  > along with two flags (namely the (Local Protection Availableś and
>  > (Local protection in useś bits). Moreover, other bits have been
>  > specified in [FAST-REROUTE] and [SOFT-PREEMPTION].
>
>  please check throughout the document.
>
>  > Authors' Address:
>
>  Should be "Addresses"
>
>Alex