Hi Francis, Thank You for the review! Please see inline.
>Document: draft-holmberg-dispatch-received-realm-08.txt >Reviewer: Francis Dupont >Review Date: 20161103 >IETF LC End Date: 20161123 >IESG Telechat date: unknown > >Summary: Almost Ready > >Major issues: None > >Minor issues: the wording should be improved by a native English writer (there >are no language >construct I can't understand but some are clearly incorrect and I am not sure >someone for instance >from Asia will have no trouble). Adam Roach, who is a native English speaker, did a fairly detailed review of the draft, and had a number of editorial comments. But, if you think there is text that is incorrect it should of course be fixed. Below you have a comment on a sentence in section 1.1. Is there something else that you also consider incorrect? >Nits/editorial comments: > - title page 1: Add SIP before "Via header" I will add as suggested. > - ToC page 2 and 10 page 11: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments >From an English grammar perspective I think both are correct, but without the >"e" is the U.S way, so I'll change as suggested. > - 1.1 page 2: IMHO it is better to expand the SIP abbrev as it is done > in the Abstract (note SIP is well known so it is not required to expand > it at the first use). I will expand, and add a reference to RFC 3261. > - 1.1 page 2: the SIP requests -> SIP requests I suggest to say "the SIP requests associated with the session". > - 1.1 page 2: transit network. -> transit networks. I will fix as suggested. > - 1.1 page 3 (wording): In order to do that ... , belongs. > This construct is not natural at all in English I am not sure how I could change it. Would removing a couple of commas have any impact? "In order to do that, a transit network often needs to know to which operator (or enterprise) the adjacent upstream network from which the SIP session initiation request is received belongs." ...and/or say "In order to provide such services, a transit..." > - 1.2 page 3: e.g. -> , e.g., (and) (e.g. -> (e.g., I will fix as suggested. > - 1.3 page 4 (at end of line): i.e. -> i.e., I will fix as suggested. >- 2 page 4: perhaps there should be an extra comma in "based e.g., on..."? > (I suggest to use "for instance") I have no idea whether there should be two commas, but I can replace it with "for instance" as suggested. > - 3 page 4: you don't list all RFC 2119 key words (I am not sure > it is a problem but for instance MAY NOT is not there). I had a look at a few other RFCs and "MAY NOT" does not appear in those either. I've never seen usage of "MAY NOT" in an RFC. > - 5.3 page 5: proceudres -> procedures I will fix as suggested. > - 5.6.2 page 8: the received-realm rule is not indented as others I will fix that. > - 6.2 page 8 and 6.3 page 9: (e.g. -> (e.g., I will fix as suggested. Regards, Christer _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
