Hi Joel, thank you for your kind review.
I agree with your comments and will consider them for the update. Cheers, Mehmet > -----Original Message----- > From: ext Joel M. Halpern [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, January 02, 2015 9:46 PM > To: A. Jean Mahoney; General Area Review Team; draft-ietf-opsawg-coman- > [email protected] > Subject: [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-opsawg-coman-probstate-reqs-03 > > 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-opsawg-coman-probstate-reqs-03 > Management of Networks with Constrained Devices: Problem Statement and > Requirements > Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern > Review Date: 2-January-2014 > IETF LC End Date: 14-January-2014 > IESG Telechat date: N/A > > Summary: This document is ready for publication as an Informational RFC. > > Major issues: N/A > > Minor issues: N/A > > Nits/editorial comments: > A loss rate of "10^-0" might be better written as "1". And sounds > like a failed link rather than a loss rate, even if the cause is > interference. (last paragraph of section 1.3) > > Section 3 states that requirements are uniquely identified by three > digit numbers. In fact, they are identified by a major section number > and a three digit minor requirement ID number. (So there is a 1.001 and > a 2.001). So the description of the requirements template in the start > of section 3 should be tuned to match what is being done. _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
