Francis: thank you very much for your review. Fernando: I think it is a reasonable practice to refer to the obsoleted document in the abstract (and in the Updates-from-RFCnnnn section).
Jari On 19 Aug 2015, at 02:52, Fernando Gont <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, Francis, > > Thanks so much for your review! Please find my comments in-line.... > > > On 07/17/2015 08:38 PM, Francis Dupont wrote: >> >> Nits/editorial comments: >> - Abstract page 1: usually there is no very explicit reference to the >> RFC the document obsoletes. IMHO this case could be a reasonable >> exception. > > FWIW, in the past, I was asked to explicitly note in the abstract what > RFC this document was obsoleting/updating. > > > >> - ToC page 3 and 18 page 25: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments >> (I use a US English spell checker, I am trying to switch to >> a UK one but both raise errors for the other alternative... >> I suggest to ask the RFC Editor to uniformize/uniformise the >> English variant...) > > Yes... I think they do this by default. > > >> >> - 1 page 3 and many other places: e.g. -> e.g., >> >> - A.1 page 29 (and other places): I have a concern about OS names, >> for instance I prefer Microsoft Windows to simply Windows. >> BTW the current offical name of Mac OS (MacOS) X is (Apple) OS X. > > We'll double-check and update as needed. > > Thanks! > > Best regards, > -- > Fernando Gont > SI6 Networks > e-mail: [email protected] > PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
