I've addressed all of Francis' comments (which I appreciate) and also
reviewed all lowercase instances of the key words.
At 2:03 PM +0200 9/3/15, Jari Arkko wrote:
Thanks for your review, Francis!
Can the authors check the comments? Thanks.
With regards to RFC 2119 keywords, if I understand the point correctly,
I wouldn't worry too much about the appearance of lower case keywords,
if they indeed are meant to be just English and not keywords. That is the
current practice since a long time ago. I don't think we need additional
text in the document to explain this. However, if there is a case where these
really are meant to be keywords, then they should, I think, be in capital
letters.
Thanks,
Jari
On 02 Sep 2015, at 12:19, Francis Dupont <[email protected]> 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."
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.
Nits/editorial comments:
- Abstract page 1: every emergency call carry -> carries
- 1 page 4: every emergency call carry -> carries
- 2 page 6: the place where I suggest to add that RFC 2119 keywords
are capitalized and in general keywords are case sensitive.
- 4.1.4 page 13: an example of a "may" and a "should" which are not
RFC 2119 keywords but only common English.
- 4.2.1 page 18: neccessarily -> necessarily
- 4.3.8 page 27: defined . -> defined.
- 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>)
- 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).
- 10.1.9 page 70: registation -> registration
- 10.4 pages 72 - 76 (many):
The IESG <[email protected]> -> The IESG <[email protected]>
- 10.6 page 82: [email protected] -> [email protected]
- 11 page 83: benefitted -> benefited
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]
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Attachment converted: TiLand:signature 637.asc ( / ) (02AA4317)
--
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
An algorithm must be seen to be believed. -- Donald Knuth
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
