Hi, > thank you for your review. > Regarding Q1_GENERAL, I can fix them soon.
Thanks :) > Regarding Q2_2, I could not find the problematic parts in the document. Sorry, this was a copy/paste error. The comment does NOT apply to this document. Sorry for the confusion. Regards, Christer 2013/5/20 Christer Holmberg <[email protected]> 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 wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. Document: draft-ietf-6man-addr-select-opt-10.txt Reviewer: Christer Holmberg Review Date: 20 May 2013 IETF LC End Date: 15 May 20, 2013 IESG Telechat date: N/A Summary: The draft is ready for publication, with a couple of minor editorial comments. Major issues: - Minor issues: - Nits/editorial comments: Q1_GENERAL: The document is inconsistent when referencing other RFCs. It uses either "RFC XXXX [RFCXXXX]", "RFC XXXX" or "[RFCXXXX]". I would suggest to use consistent way of referencing other RFCs. Q2_2: In section 2, you use "our" and "we" terminology, which could be a little confusing. If you are e.g. talking about the context/scope of the draft, I think you should use "this document", or something. If you talk about some background work/studies that has been done, maybe you could talk about "the authors", or something. Or, have I misunderstood something? Regards, Christer _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
