Eric.Gray at marconi.com
Wed Sep 20 12:55:53 PDT 2006
The following is the disposition with respect to your
comments on the Routing Requirements draft. I have made
other - relatively minor - changes to this draft and will
be submitting it to the Internet Drafts site shortly.
Replace "R-Bridge" with "RBridge".
Page 7, 2nd paragraph before section 4, delete redundant
"(the endnode information)".
Page 7, section 4.1, 1st line, insert "parts of" between
"within" and "the".
Page 8, section 4.2, 2nd line, insert "known" between
"each" and "L2".
Page 8, section 4.3, last line, replace "interactions with
bridges" with "interactions between routers and bridges".
As a general comment, this draft spends more time than it
needs to on co-located routers and RBridges. It's okay to
mention that as it makes particularly clear the need to be
able to distinguish routing protocol messages used for
routing and for RBridge interaction but I'm not the sort
of co-location needs to be mentioned so much.
? - there are a total of 4 instances of use of the
word "co-located" (or "colocated" as it was before)
and - of those - one could be removed without loss
of information. However, that one instance serves
as a parenthetical reminder in the sentence:
"there may be specific requirements imposed on the
interactions [...] between RBridge instances and
(potentially co-located) IP routing instances."
It's parenthetical, I think it adds value, and it
is a single (extra) instance that could hardly be
thought to wear out the expression.
However, if other people feel that it doesn't add
value, I will be happy to take it out.
--- [SNIP] ---
More information about the rbridge