Re: [Pals] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-06
Stewart Bryant <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.pwe3,gmane.ietf.gen-art |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi Alissa Yes, we will address all review comments that we receive. - Stewart On 18/06/2018 18:44, Alissa Cooper wrote: > Brian, thanks for your review. Andy, thanks for your response; > hopefully it means Brian’s comments will be addressed? I have entered > a No Objection ballot. > > Alissa > >> On Jun 12, 2018, at 1:50 PM, Andrew G. Malis <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Brian, >> >> Thanks, your comments are much appreciated. >> >> Cheers, >> Andy >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 11:30 PM, Brian Carpenter >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Reviewer: Brian Carpenter >> Review result: Ready with Nits >> >> Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-06 >> >> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area >> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed >> by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just >> like any other last call comments. >> >> For more information, please see the FAQ at >> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq >> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>>. >> >> Document: draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw-06.txt >> Reviewer: Brian Carpenter >> Review Date: 2018-06-12 >> IETF LC End Date: 2018-06-15 >> IESG Telechat date: 2018-06-21 >> >> Summary: Ready with nits >> -------- >> >> Comments: >> --------- >> >> This (with RFC4928) is a wonderful example of why layer >> violations are a Bad Thing. >> >> Nits: >> ----- >> >> > 1. Introduction >> .... >> > This document recommends the use of the Ethernet pseudowire >> control >> > word in all but exceptional circumstances. >> >> That's wrong, it *mandates* this usage with a MUST (first >> paragraph of section 4). >> >> > 3. Background >> .... >> > A recent posting on the Nanog email list has highlighted this >> > problem: >> > >> > >> https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2016-December/089395.html >> <https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2016-December/089395.html> >> >> No, it's no longer recent. How about: >> >> For example, a posting on the Nanog email list highlighted this >> problem: >> >> > 7. Operational Considerations >> > >> > CW presence on the PW is controlled by the configuration and >> may be >> > subject to default operational mode of not being enabled. >> >> That sentence is hard to parse. Try this: >> >> A configuration switch might determine whether the CW is used >> on the PW. >> The default configuration might be to disable use of the CW. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gen-art mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art > _______________________________________________ Pals mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pals