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-pim-rfc4601-update-survey-report-02.txt Reviewer: Christer Holmberg Review Date: 11 September 2013 IETF LC End Date: 3 September, 2013 IESG Telechat date: 12 September, 2013 Summary: The document is otherwise ready for publication, but contains some editorial issues that I suggest that the authors address. Major issues: - Minor issues: - Nits/editorial comments: General: Q_GEN_1: The RFC referencing is done in an inconsistent way: sometimes [RFC XXXX], sometimes (RFC XXXX), and sometimes RFC XXXX. I suggest to always use [RFC XXXX], OR to use [RFC XXXX] at the first occurrence, and then RFC XXXX. Q_GEN_2: The document mixes "PIM-SM" and "PIM Sparse-Mode" terminology. I suggest to use consistent terminology. Section 2.2: Q_2-2_1: s/"five other anonymous operators"/ "five anonymous operators" Section 2.2.1: Q_2-2-1_1: I suggest to replace "In the last fourteen years" with "Since <insert the year you are referencing>". Section 2.3: Q_2-3_1: I suggest to replace "Eight vendors have reported PIM Sparse-Mode implementations" with "Eight vendors responded to the survey", to be consistent with the wording in section 2.2. Section 6: Q_6_1: Why is the section number needed? Why simply not call it "Appendix A. Questionnaire"? Regards, Christer
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
