Jukka Manner wrote: > Hi, thank you for the review. > > Elwyn, can you fix those editorial comments and resubmit. > > Regards, > Jukka Hi, Jukka.
I believe last call ends tomorrow (see the message that just crossed with yours!!) I'll fix the nits plus the comment from the security directorate on All Fools Day just in case anything else appears. This may be appropriate :-X Regards, Elwyn > > On 30.3.2010 12:20, 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
