Re: Review: draft-ietf-l3vpn-ppvpn-mcast-reqts

[Thomas Morin <thomas.morin at rd.francetelecom.com>]

Hi Ben, folks,

I integrated most of your suggested editorial changes.
Thank you for your careful review.

benjamin.niven-jenkins at bt.com:
> Section 5.2.3.3 2nd paragraph: change "Thus a multicast VPN solution
> SHOULD offer the service providers appropriate" to "Thus a multicast VPN
> solution SHOULD offer service providers appropriate".  Also on the 4th
> line of this paragraph I don't think you mean 'peculiar' but rather you
> mean 'particular'?

Well, "peculiar" is indeed what I meant (and seems to be in the
dictionary).  Anyway I changed to "particular" which I agree is more
common.

> Section 5.2.4.1 2nd paragraph states "In a multicast VPN solution
> extending a unicast L3 PPVPN solution, consistency in the tunneling
> technology has to be privileged" I don't understand what this means
> especially your use of the word privileged in this context.

I changed to "favored".

> Section 5.2.11 5th paragraph: replace "from possibly" with "for".
> 

Why should the 'possibly' be removed ?
Its important to keep in mind no standardized solution exist yet for
multicast in 2547 VPNs or VR.

Cheers,

-Thomas