Hi, Miguel. Thanks for the glowing recommendation ( :-) ) and the nits. I'll fix the nits along with (so far) one suggestion from the security directorate reviewer and put out a new version after the last call ends tomorrow.
Regards, Elwyn Miguel A. Garcia wrote: > 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. > > Document: draft-ietf-nsis-ext-06.txt > Reviewer: Miguel Garcia <[email protected]> > Review Date: 30-March-2010 > IETF LC End Date: 31-March-2010 > > Summary: The document is ready for publication as an Informational RFC. > > Nits/editorial comments: > > The document is well written, and I bet the community highly > appreciates this kind of documents. I have a couple of minor comments > and nits. > > - The texs in Section 8.2 reads: > > In these subsections, references to document sections refer > to the GIST specification [I-D.ietf-nsis-ntlp]. > > I must say that I do not get the point. Sections 8.2.1, 8.2.2, and so > on, make reference to Section x, and Section, and the reader has to > add "of the GIST specification [ref]". This makes the subsections not > self contained. Besides, as a reader, I need to have a clear > understanding whether I have finished reading Section 8.2 and its > subsections, because they have this implicit references to the GIST > specification, or make sure that I am outside Section 8.2 where the > explicit references are back. > > I _highly_ recommend the authors to use a few more words and make > explicit references to a document, which means reference in > subsections of Section 8.2 would read "See Section 3.8 of the GIST > specification [ref]". > > > > - I encourage the authors to review the number of the sections pointed > in the GIST specification. I think some of the might have changed. For > example, in Section 8.2.1 of this draft, the text in the first > paragraph says: > > Currently only two message routing methods are supported (Path- > coupled MRM and Loose-End MRM), but further MRMs may be defined in > the future. See Section 3.8. One possible additional MRM under > > Section 3.8 of the GIST specification deals with signaling > applications, which I believe is not what you want to refer to. I > think the reference should be towards Section 3.3. > > > > - Section 1, last paragraph, the sentence has double verb and makes no > senses: > > This document gives an overview of the NSIS framework and protocol > suite is at the time of writing (2009) > ^^^^ > > Probably it should read: > > This document gives an overview of the NSIS framework and protocol > suite at the time of writing (2009) > > > > - Section 4, collection of bullet points, 5th bullet point. The text > reads: > > o Session binding, session X can be valid only if session Y is too > > Probably the word "valid" is missing: > > o Session binding, session X can be valid only if session Y is valid > too > > > > /Miguel > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
