Thank you Francis for your careful review (as always) and Evangelos for taking the comments into account in the new draft.
I have placed a no-obj position for this document in this week's IESG telechat. Jari On Nov 19, 2013, at 1:57 AM, Haleplidis Evangelos <[email protected]> wrote: > Greetings Francis, > > Thank you for your comments. They are currently all being addressed and will > soon have the revised draft. > > Regarding the ordering of the definitions, someone should indeed have read > at least the ForCES protocol RFC prior to arriving to this one. But your > comment make sense, therefore I reversed the order having the definitions of > the FE/CE first. > > Regards, > Evangelos Haleplidis. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 8:00 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Cc: [email protected] >> Subject: review of draft-ietf-forces-ceha-08.txt >> >> 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-forces-ceha-08.txt >> Reviewer: Francis Dupont >> Review Date: 20131028 >> IETF LC End Date: 20131106 >> IESG Telechat date: unknown >> >> Summary: Ready >> >> Major issues: None >> >> Minor issues: None >> >> Nits/editorial comments: >> - 1 pages 2 and 3: I have a concern with the order of definitions. >> IMHO there are 3 solutions: >> * keep the document order arguing definitions are repeated for >> convenience so it doesn't matter there are backward references >> (i.e., someone new in the domain should first read referenced RFCs, >> and at the opposite someone not new in the domain already knows >> the used acronyms) >> >> * introduce each acronym at its first use >> >> * same + reorder the definition list to minimize out-of-order >> internal references >> >> Note the best choice depends on the intended public so you have a >> better >> idea than me about this... >> >> - 2.2 second 1. page 5: IMHO the interface is Fp, not Fr. >> >> - 3.1 figure 2 page 7: Estbalishment -> Establishment >> >> - 3.1.1 page 7: parametrization -> parameterization >> >> - 4.1 page 11 (twice): i.e. -> i.e., >> >> - 4.1 2. page 11: the and in "+ and 2" should be moved to the end >> of the previous item, i.e., I suggest to change: >> >> + 1 (HA Mode - Cold Standby) represents that the FE is in >> HA >> mode cold Standby >> >> + and 2 (HA Mode - Hot Standby) represents that the FE is >> in >> HA mode hot Standby >> >> into >> >> + 1 (HA Mode - Cold Standby) represents that the FE is in >> HA >> mode cold Standby, and >> >> + 2 (HA Mode - Hot Standby) represents that the FE is in >> HA mode hot Standby >> >> Note if you want to put something at the end of each items the >> correct >> character is ";", and "." for the last item. >> >> - 4.2 page 13: practise -> practice >> >> - 4.2 pages 13 and 14: figure 4 should be on one page (this is >> something to leave to the RFC Editor anyway). >> >> - 4.2 figure 5 page 14 (3!): Estbalishment -> Establishment >> >> - Appendix A page 20: some indent problems with "The FE should >> stop | continue" (same remark: we can expect the RFC Editor will >> use a XML pretty-printer for the final editing). >> >> Regards >> >> [email protected] >> >> PS: I am at the IETF meeting. > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
