Sounds just right to me. Much thanks. Lou
On 10/18/2011 6:06 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > 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
