Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-mpls-ip-options-05.txt

From: "David Smith (djsmith)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 16:02:50 -0600

Hi Miguel,

Many thanks for your review.  

Regarding your nits/editorial comments:

>- Please expand acronyms at first occurrence. This includes: MPLS

MPLS is on the RFC Editor's list of acronyms that are "well known". So
we're inclined not to expand it. 

>- This is also very personal, but I think the presence of the word
"Requirements" in the title of the draft may mislead the reader,
thinking that this document just contains a collection of functional
requirements but does not affect a protocol implementation. Since the
draft proposes real actions at LERs, then I would suggest to remove
"Requirements for" from the title.

The current title was specifically recommended by active members of the
MPLS WG. So we're inclined not to change it. 

Adrian - Let us know if you think otherwise. We'll change if required. 

Regards,

/dave

-----Original Message-----
From: Miguel A. Garcia [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 6:36 AM
To: [email-masked]; John Mullooly (jmullool); [email-masked]; David
Smith (djsmith); George Swallow (swallow); Adrian Farrel; General Area
Review Team
Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-mpls-ip-options-05.txt

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer
for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq

Please resolve these comments along with any other comments you may
receive.

Document: draft-ietf-mpls-ip-options-05.txt
Reviewer: Miguel Garcia <[email-masked]> Review Date:
2010-11-29 IETF LC End Date: 2010-11-30 IESG Telechat date: (if known)

Summary: The documetn is ready for publication as a proposed standard
RFC.

Major issues: none

Minor issues: none

Nits/editorial comments:

- Please expand acronyms at first occurrence. This includes: MPLS

- This is also very personal, but I think the presence of the word
"Requirements" in the title of the draft may mislead the reader,
thinking that this document just contains a collection of functional
requirements but does not affect a protocol implementation. Since the
draft proposes real actions at LERs, then I would suggest to remove
"Requirements for" 
from the title.

Other than that, the document looks good.

/Miguel

--
Miguel A. Garcia
+34-91-339-3608
Ericsson Spain

---

From: Adrian Farrel <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 22:56:21 +0000

Thanks, Miguel, for the comments.

I think we will go with Dave's resolutions as these are particularly small
points.

Cheers,
Adrian

> From: David Smith (djsmith) [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 01 December 2010 22:03
> To: Miguel A. Garcia; [email-masked]; John Mullooly (jmullool);
> [email-masked]; George Swallow (swallow); Adrian Farrel; General Area
> Review Team
> Subject: RE: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-mpls-ip-options-05.txt
> 
> 
> Hi Miguel,
>