Dear Barry, Thanks for the review. Please see inline.
On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 12:04 AM Barry Leiba via Datatracker < [email protected]> wrote: > Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-alto-incr-update-sse-20: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-incr-update-sse/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Just some very minor things here: > > Please use the new BCP 14 boilerplate and add a normative reference to RFC > 8174. > > I am using a standard .xml file, and when I compare the xml2rfc output with the recent RFCs (e.g., RFC 8710, standard track), I do see the difference. Thanks for catching it and we will fix. > — Section 2 — > It’s a small thing, but in the first paragraph is it really useful to list > the > terms, only to have each one defined right below? My eye can instead run > down > the paragraphs and catch the list of terms that way. > > The list in the paragraph could serve as a "checksum", but it is indeed quite close by and removing redundancy is a better principle than "checksum". We will remove. > — Section 8 — > Just a note that I did not carefully review the examples. > > OK. > — Section 12 — > Please add “Fragment identifier considerations” to the templates, as > required > by RFC 6838. It would also not be a bad idea to separate the two templates > with whitespace or a text paragraph, for readability. > > Good suggestion. We will add Fragment identifier considerations” to the templates; add RFC 6838 in the Section (RFC 6838 is already a normative reference, but we will add a sentence to refer to it in Sec. 12). Yes we will add whitespace for better readability. Thanks again! Richard
_______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
