Okay. Thank you.
2013/5/29 Christer Holmberg <[email protected]> > 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
