Francis, thank you for your review. I have indicated in my ballot that no response has been received yet.
Alissa > On Jun 11, 2017, at 5:13 AM, 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 > > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-sacm-requirements-15.txt > Reviewer: Francis Dupont > Review Date: 20170607 > IETF LC End Date: 20170605 > IESG Telechat date: unknown > > Summary: Almost Ready > > Major issues: None > > Minor issues: ambiguous uses of lowercase keywords: > RFC 2119 is very ambiguous about the required case of keywords so even > of 1.1 includes a "uppercase keyword only" statement I strongly recommend > to avoid use of lowercase keywords in numbered requirements (and to > add a statement about this in 1.1). Note there are a few "required" and > at least a "shall". In a few case this should avoid further questions > about whether to promote a lower case verb (e.g., a may) to a keyword. > > Nits/editorial comments: > - ToC page 2 and 3 page 15: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments > > - 1 page 2: expand the SACM abbrev at the first use in the boday > > - 2.1 page 5 G-002: first example of a lowercase keyword (a must) > which is both ambiguous and a candidate to uppercase (note as > there is no keywords in G-002 it is even a strong candidate). > > - 2.1 page 5 G-003: ambiguous "must" in "Scalability must be addressed..." > (I propose to replace it by "has to") > > I counted 30 ambiguous keywords in numbered requirements > (I can give details if you need) > > - 2.1 page 6 (G-006 & G-009 (twice)), 2.3 page 9 (IM-006), 2.6 page 14 > (T-004): i.e. -> i.e., > > - 2.2 page 8 (ARCH-007), 2.4 pages 10 (DM-002) and 11 (DM-004, DM-010 > and DM-011), 2,5 page 13 (OP-007 (twice)), 2.6 page 14 (T-003 and T-005), > 5.2 page 17: e.g. -> e.g., > > - 2.6 page 14 (proposal): hyperText -> hypertext > BTW HTTP is a well known abbrev so you can simply leave HTTP > (cf http://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt) > > - 5 pages 15-17: lowercase keywords (so not to be interpreted as keywords) > are fine here as there are not in numbered requirements. > > - 5.2 page 17: unecessary -> unnecessary > > - 7.1 page 18: draft-ietf-sacm-terminology is (intented to be) > informational so to have it as a normative reference is questionable. > Same for RFC 5209 and RFC 7632. Note according to the RFC 7322 the > rule for normative vs informative references is flexible so you can > argue these documents bring important or even critical information. > > - Addresses page 10: (more for the RFC Editor) please try to move the > title to the next page. > > Regards > > [email protected] > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
