Many thanks, Francis, for this review! All nits acknowledged and fixed. Thanks,
Carlos. > On Oct 29, 2014, at 9:56 AM, Francis Dupont <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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-mpls-ipv6-only-gap-03.txt > Reviewer: Francis Dupont > Review Date: 20141025 > IETF LC End Date: 20141027 > IESG Telechat date: unknown > > Summary: Ready > > Major issues: None > > Minor issues: None > > Nits/editorial comments: > - ToC page 2 and 5 page 18: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments > > - 3.2.6 page 8: singaling -> signaling > > - 3.3.1 page 9: e.g. -> e.g., > > - 3.3.2.4.1 pages 11 and 12: the conclusion (Gap: None) doesn't seem > very in phase with the text. Perhaps it is another case of "out of scope > known gap"? > > - 3.4.2 page 15 (UK vs US spelling): behaviour -> behavior > > - 4 page 17: Identifed -> Identified > > - 6 pages 18 and 19, Authors' Addresses page 26: I don't like > ISO IS 3166 two letter codes used in postal addresses but it seems > to be what the new RFC required... > > Regards > > [email protected] > > PS: I reviewed the 02 version but now the 03 was published so I updated > my comments. rfcdiff shows 03 is better than 02 at the exception of: > - in 3.3.1.1 page 9 perhaps a missing '<' as I can see: > ... (see xref > target="LDP"/>). > PPS: it could be useful to have a checklist of all RFCs which should > be updated but it is more a task for the WG than something to put > in the document (I don't follow the WG so I don't know if it already > exists :-). _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
