Last Call Review of draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-interop-05
review-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-interop-05-genart-lc-campbell-2013-09-23-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-interop
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 06)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2013-09-24
Requested 2013-09-04
Authors Ali Sajassi , Samer Salam , Dr. Nabil N. Bitar , Florin Balus
I-D last updated 2013-09-23
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -05 by Ben Campbell (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -05 by Matt Lepinski (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Ben Campbell
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-interop by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 05 (document currently at 06)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2013-09-23
review-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-interop-05-genart-lc-campbell-2013-09-23-00
I am the assigned 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 Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document:  draft-ietf-l2vpn-pbb-vpls-interop-05
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2013-09-23
IETF LC End Date: 2013-09-24

Summary: Ready for publication as an informational RFC.

Major issues:

None

Minor issues:

None

Nits/editorial comments:

-- Abstract:

Please expand H-VPLS on first mention

-- section 1, 1st paragraph:

Please expand VPLS on first mention.

-- section 4, 3rd to last paragraph: "Different PBB access networks..."

The previous and subsequent paragraphs say "PBBN access networks". Should this
instance also say PBBN?

-- section 4.3:

2nd paragraph says this scenario is applicable to "Loosely Coupled Service
Domains" and "Different Service Domains". The 4th paragraph mentions
"Tightly...". Does that mean the scenario also applies to "Tightly Coupled
Service Domains"? (i.e. should it be added to the 2nd paragraph, or removed
from the 4th?)