Mayank Upadhyay wrote:
[Really CC'ing her this time. Sorry.]
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Mayank Upadhyay <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
FYI, Seema no longer has the email address [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>. I'm CC'ing her on an alternate email
address: [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
Also, we've received feedback about four specific nits from
someone named Joel Jaeggli for operations considerations from the
operations directorate. Presumably the document shepherd or AD has
access to those comments as well. (No one else was CC'd on that
email.)
I'm the shepherd and did not receive any comments from Joel.
Gonzalo,
Thanks for your review and I agree with your changes. In regards to the
non-RFC2606-compliant FQDNs nits; I believe that this is referring to
the package names which are constant and consists of components in
reverse order to fqdn. I've asked multiple people and none know of a
way to delimit the associated text to ignore these package names.
Shawn.
--
-Mayank
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 12:03 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
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-kitten-rfc2853bis-05.txt
Reviewer: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
Review Date: 02 June 2009
Summary:
This draft is ready for publication as a PS RFC.
Comments:
In general, Abstracts should not contain references. While
referencing
RFC 2853 to explain that this document obsoletes it is
probably OK, I
would remove the rest of the references from the Abstract.
The naming of the references is not consistent. Some of them
are named
[RFCxxxx] but not all of them.
In Section 4, a ':' to introduce the definition of each
optional service
would probably make the text clearer (e.g., Mutual
Authentication: in
addition...)
The word "Section" should be capitalized when referring to a
specific
section (e.g., in Section 8).
The ID nits tool makes a few observations about boilerplates. The
authors should make sure that the boilerplates in the draft
are OK.
http://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-kitten-rfc2853bis-05.txt
Also, the ID tools complains about 4 instances of lines with
non-RFC2606-compliant FQDNs but does not identify them.
Thanks,
Gonzalo
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
