I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Document: draft-ietf-ccamp-attribute-bnf-02
Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani
Review Date: Oct-17-2011
IETF LC End Date: Not known.
IESG Telechat date: Oct-20-2011
Summary: This draft is ready as a Proposed Standard.
Major issues: 0
Minor issues: 2
Nits/editorial comments: 3
Minor:
* S2: In the phrase, "... implementations must be capable ..."
is this a normative MUST?
* S3: In the phrase, "... implementations must be capable ..."
is this a normative MUST?
Nits:
* Abstract: s/how LSP attribute are/how LSP attributes are/
* S1: "Two LSP Attributes related objects ..." --- This reads
funny. Did you mean "Two LSP Attribute related objects..."?
This oversight, if indeed it is an oversight, is repeated else-
where in the document as well.
At other places (e.g., S3.2.1), you simply use "LSP Attribute object".
So I am not sure which one is correct.
* S2.1: s/LSP attributed related objects/LSP attributes related objects/
or maybe "LSP Attribute related objects"?
- vijay
--
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60566 (USA)
Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / [email protected]
Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
