Hi, Russ,
Thanks for your response.
There are two items where I would differ with you. Part of the point of
gen-art is to ensure that the RFCs are adequately comprehensible to an
audience that is not deep into the subject area but do not have a
general knowledge of Internet protcols. Part of the point of this is to
allow people to quickly determine that documents are *really* not
relevant and to allow implementers to know whether a piece of
functionality is relevant without having to be totally cognizant of the
details. One important part of this is acronym expansion and jargon
busting with definitions.
Hence I believe it is worth adding a sentence along the lines of:
AFS is a system that shares an ancestry with the Andrew Filing System
but is known by the unexpandable pseudo-acronym AFS for copyright reasons.
And I think some explanation of Rx is needed (Google tells me it is a
'UDP based Client-Server Remote Procedure Call protocol used by AFS.')
BTW it is highly likely that you would have the same discussion with the
RFC Editor.
The other points are agreed.
Regards,
Elwyn
Russ Allbery wrote:
Elwyn Davies <[email protected]> writes:
Nits/editorial comments:
Abstract/s1: Either AFS is an acronym that should be expanded or its
relationship to the 'Andrew Filing System' should be explained.
As Jeff explained, I don't believe there's much need to say anything here.
AFS has been the official name of the protocol for many years, and I
believe we'd otherwise have to add a note that Andrew is a registered
trademark of Carnegie Mellon University and so forth. The audience of the
published document isn't going to care.
s4: The PTS service name specified is afs3-prserver. Since the server
is know as a PTS server, it would have seemed easier to remember if it
had been called 'afs3-ptserver'. It is doubtless too late to make this
change.
Unfortunately, yes.
s4: The term 'Rx' needs some brief explanation for non-AFS experts.
I'm not sure that it does in the contexts in which it's used, but I'd be
happy to add something. However, I don't know of a good brief explanation
off-hand. (Ideally, it would be a protocol reference, but there isn't one
that I know of.)
s5, para 6 (top of page 7): s/but be aware that configuration/but be
aware that that configuration/
Changed to "but be aware that such a configuration" to avoid the duplicate
word as a matter of style.
s6, next to last para: s/doex not exist/did not exist/
Eh. Okay, changed, since I don't have a strong opinion.
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
