Hi,
There is already an RFC Editor Note saying...
Please edit for consistency:
The objects are called "LSP Attributes" and "LSP Required Attributes"
Let me know if anything else needs to be added.
Thanks,
Adrian
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lou Berger [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: 18 October 2011 22:56
> To: Vijay K. Gurbani
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Adrian
> Farrel; General Area Review Team
> Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ccamp-attribute-bnf-02
>
> Vijay,
>
> Please see below.
>
> On 10/17/2011 5:18 PM, Vijay K. Gurbani wrote:
> > 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?
> >
>
> These are both in text quoted from RFC5420, so the comment applies to
> that RFC. Clearly we can't change it in this document. (BTW usage of
> 'must' as in the English/informative usage is still legitimate.)
>
> > Nits:
> > * Abstract: s/how LSP attribute are/how LSP attributes are/
> >
>
> "LSP Attributes" is a term/name defined in RFC5420.
>
> This does point out that in three places in the document, the following
> is needed:
> s/LSP attributes/LSP Attributes
>
> > * 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.
> >
>
> good catch! it should be:
> s/LSP Attribute/LSP Attributes
>
> > * S2.1: s/LSP attributed related objects/LSP attributes related objects/
> > or maybe "LSP Attribute related objects"?
>
> another good catch:
> s/LSP attributed/LSP Attributes
> >
> > - vijay
>
> Much thanks!
>
> Lou
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
