> On 10 May 2017, at 22:38, Francis Dupont <[email protected]> wrote: > > Summary: Ready > > Major issues: None > > Minor issues: None > > Nits/editorial comments: > I am afraid there are some abuses of not well known and not introduced > abbreviations. Unfortunately I know well the context so I had no problem > reading the document but perhaps it won't be the case for all readers > including in the intended audience... I tried to find them but likely > I missed a few.
Hi Francis, Thanks for this very detailed editorial review. I agree with all of them with one update: > - 1 page 3: Intented -> intended in "Note that this document has the > Intended status of Experimental.” Since that document is now an RFC I think the correct term is now ‘Category’ rather than ‘Intended status’? > > I tried ispell with the British (vs standard/US) variant for English > and as I expected it gave some spelling errors too: optimize, > organizational, honor, maximizes. So I recommend to adopt for > the document US English (easier and it works better when an RFC > is cited as 99% of them are in US English). Now you do what you'd like > as soon as it is coherent in the whole document. I agree that choosing US English is the best solution so will do a spell check pass based on that. Entirely my fault that the British spelling crept in… Regards Sara. _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
