Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-08

In Authors' 48 hours:

From: RFC Editor
Subject: authors 48 hours: RFC 3946
          NOW AVAILABLE
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 14:03:37 -0700
To: eric_mannie@hotmail.com, dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be
Cc: RFC Editor , Bill Fenner
    , Alex Zinin , Bert
    Wijnen , kireeti@juniper.net,
    adrian@olddog.co.uk

One set of NITs was posted by AD as part of
IETF Last Call:

-----Original Message-----
From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com]
Sent: maandag 10 februari 2003 13:47
To: Ccamp-wg (E-mail)
Subject: AD comments on: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-07.txt


All,

I have asked IESG secretariat to issue an IETF Last Call
for this document for PS. We have detached the
sonet-sdh-extensions document from the "package" and it
will have to stand on its own. Remember that I am not
willing to defend the sonet-sdh-extensions signalling
document if nobody can come up with documents (or ptrs to
documents) that describe the technology to be signalled.

W.r.t. draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-07.txt I have
still a few nits. Pls consider them as the first comments
for the IETF Last Call process (so you can integrate
any edits with whatever needs to be done as a result of
IETF Last Call).

- Personal opinion... I find it disgusting that a list of
  contributors makes up the first 3 pages of the document.
  I wonder why you moved it to the front... If you want to
  keep it, I think it much better fits at the end.
  Nevertheless, I personally will not block it if this is
  what you want.

- At the bottom of section 1, remove the text about changes
  reb 6 to rev 7

- I see funny redmond characters
  - in first para on page 8
  - in footer on each page
  - in the references section, 1st reference
  - in Authors' Addresses section (title)
  - possibly at other places?
  You may want to fix that

- one but last para page 10: s/Others flags/Other flags/

- in the Security Considerations section, you may want to
  make clear that RFC3212 discusses security considerations
  for CR-LDP.

- In the IANA considerations... (but I bet IANA will ask for it)
  you better make it clear which assignments are in which name
  space. I personally would also repeat the actual code points
  to be assigned.

Thanks,
Bert

AS agreed with WG chair(s), this document has now been separated from the draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions draft. So it can now progress on its own.
Ad is reviewing in preparation for IETF Last Call