Thanks for your very in-depth review, Ben! Authors, please respond. A few observations from my side as well:
> This is a difficult review, as the document is an update to a previous > RFC. It is almost certain that some of my comments apply to the > original RFC, and I realize that the goal of this revision is probably > not to fix _every_ issue in that RFC. Therefore, a response to the > effect of "That issue was in the original RFC, and was beyond the > scope of our changes" is perfectly reasonable for most of my comments. This is a the first PS RFC on this topic, and the intent is to have sufficient quality for a PS. The previous RFC was Experimental. In short, I think we want to fix issues where we see them. > That being said, there are a large number of editorial nits that have > clearly been introduced in this draft that were not in the original > RFC. The omission of articles and incorrect use of "an" vs "a" occur > throughout. A diff shows that there are several paragraphs where the > introduction of such errors are the _only_ changes from the RFC, which > I suspect they may be the result of regression errors. Is it possible > that the author started from the original test for RFC 4068 _before_ > the RFC editor edits? If so, I am concerned that if there were any > substantive changes introduced to RFC 4068 during the RFC Editor or > author's 48 process, they may have been lost. Checking for such > losses would, unfortunately, require more time than I can commit to > this review. Ah. Probably authors started from their own source, not the RFC. Authors, please do a diff and back-port the RFC Editor editorial (and possibly other) changes. Jari _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
