Hi Jari, Thanks a lot for your review and comments.
As said in my reply to Robert, we will separate the specification and the examples. Also we would try to improve its readability. Best regards, Jie > -----Original Message----- > From: Jari Arkko [mailto:jari.ar...@piuha.net] > Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 8:35 PM > To: Robert Sparks > Cc: Dongjie (Jimmy); General Area Review Team; p...@ietf.org; > draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe....@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review: draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe-02 > > Robert, Jimmy, > > Thanks for the review & discussion. > > From my perspective some of the things that Robert raises are very valid > questions. The particular item that I'm perhaps most interested in is the > text in > Section 3.2, which seems like explaining what happens in an example, but it > also > uses normative language and keywords to say what various entities should do. > Yet, the example is just one example. Is there a need to lift the keyword > statements out of this paragraph and generalise them to make sure that the > specification is about the general case and not about the example? > Alternatively, > maybe I misunderstood the purpose of the keyword statements. > > (I also agree with Robert that the document is fairly hard to read. This > isn't the > first document in the IETF to be like that, and I didn't feel that this issue > is > discuss-worthy.) > > Jari _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
