Scott, The document was just approved by the IESG - actually the only one in the CAPWAP package to have been approved by now.
I suggest that you deal with the issue of expanding acronyms in the title or not, with the RFC Editor. I do not hold any strong opinion. If expanded they should include the initials as well. > "Control And Provisioning for Wireless Access Points (CAPWAP) Threat > Analysis for IEEE 802.11 Deployments"? IEEE is a well established acronym in the industry. CAPWAP is not (yet). Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott G. Kelly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 6:25 PM > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Gonzalo Camarillo; > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Gen-art review of > draft-ietf-capwap-threat-analysis-04.txt > > One comment on this: > > Are we seriously planning to change the title from > > "CAPWAP Threat Analysis for IEEE 802.11 Deployments" > > to > > "Control And Provisioning for Wireless Access Points Threat > Analysis for IEEE 802.11 Deployments"? > > or something like that? Is expanding the acronym for a > protocol that will be published before (or together with) > this document really that important? And if we have to do > this, why don't we have to expand IEEE? > > Not trying to be difficult, but this seems like more trouble > than it's worth, and doesn't seem to enhance the readability > of the title. On the contrary... > > > -----Original Message----- > >From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Sent: Sep 25, 2008 5:49 AM > >To: Gonzalo Camarillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [email protected], > >[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: RE: Gen-art review of > draft-ietf-capwap-threat-analysis-04.txt > > > > > >Thanks, Gonzallo. > > > >The first three comments seem to be in place, and easy to > fix by Notes > >to the RFC Editor. > > > >The last issue will be solved by the formatting of the > document by the > >RFC Editor. > > > >Regards, > > > >Dan > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Gonzalo Camarillo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 3:35 PM > >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Cc: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > >> [email protected] > >> Subject: Gen-art review of draft-ietf-capwap-threat-analysis-04.txt > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> I have been selected as the General Area Review Team > >> (Gen-ART) reviewer for this draft (for background on > Gen-ART, please > >> see http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). > >> > >> Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before > >> posting a new version of the draft. > >> > >> > >> Draft: draft-ietf-capwap-threat-analysis-04.txt > >> Reviewer: Gonzalo Camarillo > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Review > >> Date: 25 September 2008 > >> > >> Summary: > >> > >> This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that > >> should be fixed before publication. > >> > >> > >> Comments: > >> > >> The acronym CAPWAP should be expanded in the title of the draft. > >> > >> The draft uses capitalized RFC 2119 language without > referencing RFC > >> 2119. Given that this is an informational document, it may > be OK to > >> do so, but this is something the AD should decide. > >> > >> RFC 4017 is defined as an Informative Reference but is not used > >> anywhere in the text. > >> > >> The ID Nits tool complains about a too long line (i.e., > longer than > >> 72 characters). > >> > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Gonzalo > >> > >> > >> > > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
