Sure. Whatever.
Actually I am completely baffled by this comment as the terminology section
in this I-D is Section 2. We are talking about the same I-D aren't we?
draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-06.txt
All I see after the Abstract is a section with RFC 2119 language. Maybe this
should be toned differently for a requirements draft, but I find it useful
and helpful to use 2119 language in requirements documents. As to the
placement of 2119 boilerplate we should observe that the RFC Editor will
always position this where he thinks it appropriate in an RFC and this has
nothing to do with whether the document is ready for publication. Sometimes,
it is true, this is immediately after the Introduction, and sometimes it is
immediately after the Abstract. See
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5316.txt and
http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc5440.txt for examples of each.
Thanks,
Adrian
PS In case there should be any doubt, I really do appreciate the work done
by the GenArt review team to improve the quality of our RFCs.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ross Callon" <[email protected]>
To: "Gonzalo Camarillo" <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>;
<[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 8:17 PM
Subject: RE: Gen-art review of draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-06.txt
I proposed to the authors to put in an RFC editor's note to cover your
comment. If all are fine with this, then we should be ready to put this
on an IESG telechat.
Thanks, Ross
-----Original Message-----
From: Gonzalo Camarillo [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 27 January 2009 04:31
To: [email protected]
Cc: Ross Callon; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Gen-art review of draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-06.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 resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Draft: draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-06.txt
Reviewer: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email protected]>
Review Date: 27 January 2009
Summary:
This draft is ready for publication as an Informational RFC.
Comments:
The Terminology Section is not usually appended to the Abstract. It is
usually placed after the Introduction as a regular section.
Thanks,
Gonzalo
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
