Subject: Last Call comments draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info-22.txt

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 23:34:48 -0000

I already had an exchange with the authors about these comments, but I just want
to formally drop them into the system. They're all relatively minor editorial
points.

Adrian

===

It would be nice to do a little post-processing to your text file to
arrange the RBNF to make it slightly easier to read. Of course, the
semantics would not change, so this is not essential: just nice.

---

Figures 1 and 2 would benefit from a statement that "Rb" is a resource
block.

---

Figure 2 has a couple of stray '+' signs on the left-hand edge of the 
output matrix box.

---

Page 10

   <ResourceAccessibility ::= <PoolInputMatrix> <PoolOutputMatrix>

is missing a '>'

---

In 5.3.1 please

s/draft/document/  twice.

---

I wonder whether you want to add a reference to RFC7308 in Section 6.1.
I don't think this makes any difference to the validity of the section,
but it may be helpful when data models based on this information model 
are built.

---

Should 6.5 also have a reference to ISIS TE?

---

Page 15

You need to separate the RBNF from the end of the first paragraph

---

The question for section 8 is: are there any security elements that 
need to be in your information model? Security qualities of links
and nodes? Security capabilities of links and nodes?

---

Section 3 has a reference to [G.7715] but this is not shown in the 
references section. 

---

[G.707], [G.709], and [G.Sup39] are listed as references, but not used.

---

s/Author's Addresses/Authors' Addresses/