Thank you very much for your review, Christer. 

I think I agree with the suggested edits. Eliot, over to you.

Jari

On 09 Dec 2014, at 13:50, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmb...@ericsson.com> 
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>
> 
> Document:                             draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-06.txt
> 
> Reviewer:                             Christer Holmberg
> 
> Review Date:                   9 December 2014
> 
> IETF LC End Date:     15 December 2014
> 
> IETF Telechat Date:           18 December 2014
> 
> Summary:                      The document is well written, and almost ready. 
> I do have a few editorial comments on the Abstract and Introduction, and a 
> general editorial comment.
> 
> Major Issues: None
> 
> Minor Issues: None
> 
> Editorial nits:
> 
> 
> General:
> ----------
> 
> Q_1:
> 
>       In Section 2, the IETF reply text sometimes uses "we" to refer to IETF. 
> I think it would be good to say "IETF".
> 
>       For example:
> 
>               "We consider .ARPA part" -> "IETF considers .ARPA part"
>               "...few cases where we may further..." -> "...few cases where 
> IETF may further..."
> 
>               Etc.
> 
>       This may not be seen needed when reading the draft, but it will be 
> useful if e.g. the IETF reply text is quoted elsewhere.
> 
> 
> Abstract:
> ------------
> 
> Q_2:
> 
>       I think it would be good if the Abstract also would indicate that the 
> LS was primarily sent to ICANN. Currently the text only says that an LS was 
> sent somewhere, and that IETF was invited to reply.
> 
> Q_3:
> 
>       The last sentence of the Abstract says: "The IETF community is invited 
> to comment and propose changes to this document."
> 
>       It is unclear what "this document" refers to. If it refers to the 
> aggregate proposal mentioned earlier, I think that should be more clear.
> 
> 
> Introduction:
> ---------------
> 
> Q_4:
> 
>       In the 1st paragraph, I think it would be good to indicate that IETF 
> was invited to reply to the LS.
> 
> 

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Reply via email to