Hi Francis,
Thanks for your review. Please see in-line.
At 12:19 PM +0200 9/2/15, Francis Dupont wrote:
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more information, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Document: draft-ietf-ecrit-additional-data-34.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20150828
IETF LC End Date: 20150824
IESG Telechat date: 20150903
Summary: Almost Ready
Major issues: None
Minor issues:
This document uses and even redefines RFC 2119 keywords outside the
*formal* wording of RFC 2119: quoting the RFC 2119 (Abstract):
"These words are often capitalized."
I don't believe the draft redefines 2119 keywords. The Abstract of
RFC 2119 is informative, not normative. I have authored a number of
RFCs and read far more, and the 2119 boilerplate and use of keywords
in this document seems to be to be exactly the same as for most
documents.
This formally means a keyword in lower case is still a keyword which
must (MUST :-) be interpreted as described in RFC 2119. IMHO this is
for very old IETF documents: any IETF document published less than 20
years ago uses full upper case keywords when they have to be interpreted
so this statement in the RFC 2119 Abstract is more source of confusion
than clarification.
If it can be accepted I propose to add an exception for this document
saying that RFC 2119 keywords are capitalized.
I disagree that lowercase words carry RFC 2119 implications. I don't
believe this to be common understanding, and I can tell you that in
my experience it is not common practice.
That said, I do strive to go to great lengths to avoid even potential
confusion, so I normally try to avoid using lowercase forms of 2119
words just on the off chance that some reader somewhere could be
confused. With that in mind, I have reviewed all lowercase uses in
the document of "may", "should", and "must" (there are no lowercase
uses of "recommended"), and have changed the vast majority of them to
alternate words. In cases where the alternate wording was awkward
and the context more than clear, I left them.
Nits/editorial comments:
- Abstract page 1: every emergency call carry -> carries
I disagree because there is an implied "should" due to the preceding
"The intent is that..." which makes this subjunctive.
- 1 page 4: every emergency call carry -> carries
Same as above.
- 2 page 6: the place where I suggest to add that RFC 2119 keywords
are capitalized and in general keywords are case sensitive.
I don't think this is needed, and in my experience would be highly unusual.
- 4.1.4 page 13: an example of a "may" and a "should" which are not
RFC 2119 keywords but only common English.
I have changed this use of "may".
- 4.2.1 page 18: neccessarily -> necessarily
This was corrected in an earlier edit, but thanks for pointing it out.
- 4.3.8 page 27: defined . -> defined.
This was corrected in an earlier edit, but thanks for pointing it out.
- 5.2 page 36 and 5.3 page 38:
I am afraid the provided-by construct in the example is unbalanced
(i.e., <provided-by -> <provided-by>)
Good catch, thank you.
- 8 page 62, 9 page 65 (twice): as security and privacy considerations
can be read independently I suggest to replace the 3 "may"s by
equivalent wordings ("can", "be allowed to", etc).
I reviewed these as part of addressing your first comment, and have
made some changes.
- 10.1.9 page 70: registation -> registration
Good catch, thank you.
- 10.4 pages 72 - 76 (many):
The IESG <[email protected]> -> The IESG <[email protected]>
I agree, done.
- 10.6 page 82: [email protected] -> [email protected]
Good catch, thank you.
- 11 page 83: benefitted -> benefited
Both are shown as correct, but I'm happy to change it.
Note I didn't check the schemas (even you had the nice attention to
provide them directly, cf appendix B). I reviewed the 33 version
(so at the exception of spelling errors I gave the 33.txt page numbers)
and verified the 33-34 diff.
Regards
[email protected]
--
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
Some days you feel like Schrodinger's cat. --M. S. Hutchenreuther
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
