Yes, I believe that the changes made were sufficient. On 8 May 2017 at 22:15, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Martin, > > just to double check: do you think this document is ready now and all your > comments have been addressed? > > Mirja > > >> Am 27.04.2017 um 13:57 schrieb Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia - FR/Nozay) >> <[email protected]>: >> >> Hello Martin, >> >> I just posted an update where the " Requirements Language" text has been >> moved in a section 1.1. >> As I saw it on a number of other ietf drafts, I also added the sentence >> "When the words appear in lower case, their natural language meaning is >> used." >> >> The update and status are available at >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-multi-cost/ >> >> Thanks, >> Sabine >> >> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Martin Thomson [mailto:[email protected]] >>>> Sent: 26 April 2017 08:39 >>>> To: Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia - FR/Nozay) <sabine.randriamasy@nokia- >>>> bell-labs.com> >>>> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; draft-ietf-alto-multi- >>>> [email protected] >>>> Subject: Re: Artart telechat review of draft-ietf-alto-multi-cost-08 >>>> >>>> On 26 April 2017 at 03:26, Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia - FR/Nozay) >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> This document doesn't cite RFC 2119, but it uses the keywords. >>>>> [SR ] RFC 2119 is cited on page 1, section " Requirements Language" >>>>> and >>>> section "9.1. Normative References". Should it be referenced elsewhere? >>>> >>>> The convention is to put those in the body, I missed it in the boilerplate. >>>> >>>> I skimmed the other changes, and they look fine. >
_______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
