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-pwe3-vccv-impl-survey-results-02.txt (Informational) Reviewer: Brian Carpenter Review Date: 2013-09-09 IETF LC End Date: 2013-09-23 IESG Telechat date: Summary: Almost ready -------- Minor Issues: ------------- I found the Abstract too complicated and detailed, and the first paragraph of the Introduction too simple and general. Personally, I'd be inclined to swap them, with minor adjustments. > Note that the intention of this document is to not draw conclusions > based upon these results, but rather to simply report the results to > the PWE3 working group for its use when developing other drafts. OK, but wouldn't it be reasonable to include a short "summary of results" section? You leave the reader to swallow a whole lot of detailed answers rather than providing an overview. > The responding companies are listed below > in Section 2.1. ... > No provisions were made for anonymity. Were they told in advance that their names would be published? I think this needs to be made clear. (Compare RFC6036, where we had a number of respondents that we validated, but who requested to remain anonymous in the published results.) I think the second paragraph of Security Considerations would fit better in section 1.1. "PW/VCCV Survey Overview" where you describe the methodology. Editorial: ---------- The last sentence of the Abstract is ungrammatical and also conveys no new information. It could be deleted. _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
