Re: Document Action: CR-LDP Extensions for ASON to Informational

[Bob Braden <braden@ISI.EDU>]

  *> 
  *> The IESG has approved the Internet-Draft 'CR-LDP Extensions for ASON' 
  *> <draft-aboulmagd-ccamp-crldp-ason-ext-02.txt> as an Informational RFC.
  *> This has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an IETF 
  *> Working Group.  The IESG contact person is Scott Bradner.
  *>  
  *>  
  *> 
  *> RFC Editor Note: 
  *> Background:
  *> 
  *> I want to make it clear that the purpose of the document is to document 
  *> some IANA allocation of code points, and not something which can be 
  *> misconstrued as a specification of the protocol.
  *> 
  *> Ideally the structure of the document would be different, with different 
  *> references, but there isn't time for that. So these are minimalist 
  *> changes. 
  *> 
  *> Change title from 
  *> 	CR-LDP Extensions for ASON 
  *> to 
  *> 	Documentation of IANA assignments for CR-LDP Extensions for 
  *> 	Automatic Switched Optical Network (ASON)
  *> 
  *> [Bert, I assume the title needed to have ASON expanded in any case.]

Yup.

I believe this change in title and abstract, etc are just right  Thanks!

Bob Braden (speaking 1/3 for the RFC Editor, 1/3 as IANA designated
expert for RSVP, and 1/3 for himself)

  *> 
  *> Add to the end of the abstract (tagging onto the last sentence) i.e. 
  *> after "... for use across ASON reference points." after removing the final 
  *> period: 
  *> 
  *> 	for the purpose of the IANA making code point assignments. 
  *> 	The protocols that specify the use of these extensions are described 
  *> 	in ITU-T documents.
  *> 
  *> Change the last paragraph in the introduction from 
  *> 	This draft introduces those CR-LDP extensions that are specific to 
  *> 	ASON. This draft should be considered in junction with RFC 3036 [4], 
  *> 	RFC 3212 [3], and CR-LDP extensions for GMPLS [5]. 
  *> to 
  *> 	This document introduces those CR-LDP extensions that are specific to 
  *> 	ASON and requests IANA allocation of code points for these extensions. 
  *> 	The document does not specify how these extensions are used; that is 
  *> 	the subject of the above mentioned ITU-T documents. 
  *> 	This document should be considered in junction with RFC 3036 [4], 
  *> 	RFC 3212 [3], and CR-LDP extensions for GMPLS [5].
  *> 
  *> [Note that I changed "draft" to "document" above - something that we normally 
  *> leave to the rfc-editor to do.]
  *> 
  *> [Shouldn't "in junction" above be "in conjunction"?]
  *> 
  *>   Erik
  *>