Peter, thanks for your review. Christopher, thanks for addressing Peter’s comments. I have entered a No Objection ballot position.
Alissa > On Jun 30, 2017, at 12:01 PM, Peter Yee <[email protected]> wrote: > > Christopher, > > Thanks for clarifying what the implementation paragraph is supposed to > convey. It wasn't clear to me that this applied only within the router or > that it would be over-the-wire identical. > > As for the commas, there were a lot of them. I didn't even start > trying to clean them up until part way through the review. As you note, some > of them are tricky. That was part of the problem I had in reading the draft > - dense sentences that strung together lengthy clauses requiring the reader > to refer to earlier bits in the sentence in order to make sure the meaning > was understood. To be clear, I'm not saying anything stated in the draft > appeared to be incorrect. It just made for more difficult reading and > parsing. > > I appreciate the quick response and look forward to reading the revised > document. > > -Peter > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dearlove, Christopher (UK) [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 2:07 AM > To: Peter Yee; [email protected] > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: RE: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-manet-rfc5444-usage-06 > > Peter > > Thanks you for your comments. I should note that the following comments are > mine, not yet consulted with my co-authors. > > I'm going to mostly disagree with your disagreement about the indicated point > being an implementation issue. What matters is consistency at a router. > Between routers doesn't matter. If router A adds the TLV in the multiplexer > or the protocol, the on-air message is identical. And it doesn't matter if > router B receiving a packet makes the opposite decision, as long as router > B's multiplexer and protocol are consistent. I believe one reason for this > comment is that different implementers have made different decisions. Because > there is consistency needed on a router is why it says it is "in part". > > However, I would agree, re-reading it again, that as worded, it doesn't come > over as clearly as it should, so we will look at re-wording it. > > I don't agree with all of your comments about commas. Just to take the first, > simply removing the comma is not correct because "but did not quite succeed > in" is a parenthesis. However, fails to be correct because attempted and > succeed take different prepositions. But then "attempted to providing" is of > course incorrect. So that sentence needs work, but not simply removal of a > comma. I will take a look at each case (which I haven't yet done), but > ultimately of course the RFC Editor will act as the arbiter of such matters. > > Christopher > > -- > Christopher Dearlove > Senior Principal Engineer > BAE Systems Applied Intelligence Laboratories > __________________________________________________________________________ > > T: +44 3300 467500 | E: [email protected] > > BAE Systems Applied Intelligence, Chelmsford Technology Park, Great Baddow, > Chelmsford, Essex CM2 8HN. > www.baesystems.com/ai > BAE Systems Applied Intelligence Limited Registered in England & Wales No: > 01337451 Registered Office: Surrey Research Park, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7YP > > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Yee [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 30 June 2017 07:47 > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-manet-rfc5444-usage-06 > > ----------------------! WARNING ! ---------------------- This message > originates from outside our organisation, either from an external partner or > from the internet. > Consider carefully whether you should click on any links, open any > attachments or reply. > Follow the 'Report Suspicious Emails' link on IT matters for instructions on > reporting suspicious email messages. > -------------------------------------------------------- > > Reviewer: Peter Yee > Review result: Ready with Issues > > 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-manet-rfc5444-usage-06 > Reviewer: Peter Yee > Review Date: 2017-06-29 > IETF LC End Date: 2017-06-29 > IESG Telechat date: 2017-07-06 > > Summary: Ready with issues. > > Major issues: > > Minor issues: > > Page 12, 2nd bullet item: I disagree that this is an implementation detail. > Unless there's additional signaling which indicates which implementation > generated the packet, how is the receiving demultiplexer to know whether the > sending multiplexer added a Message TLV or that was done by the protocol? > > Nits/editorial comments: > > General: > > Somebody needs to strangle the comma fairy. She was a bit too liberal with > this document. ;-) I didn't take the time to clean up all of the excess > commas, but many are noted below. > > Change "end to end" to "end-to-end" throughout the document. > > Specific: > > Page 3, Section 1, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence: delete the comma after "in". > > Page 3, Section 1, 3rd paragraph: delete the comma after "[RFC5444]". > > Page 4, 1st full bullet item, 2nd sentence: delete the commas after "process" > and "usage". Change "is" to "are". > > Page 5, 1st bullet item, 3rd sentence: delete "of" after "design". > > Page 5, last bullet item: append a comma after "count". > > Page 6, last paragraph, 2nd sentence: insert "may" before "pass". Change the > comma after "rules" to a semicolon. > > Page 7, Section 1.3: change "makes" to "make" in both place. Change "impedes" > to "impede". > > Page 7, Section 2, 2nd paragraph: append a comma after \"TLV\". > > Page 9, Section 4.3, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence: append a comma after > "Originator Address". > > Page 10, Section 4.4.1, 1st bullet item, 1st sentence: elide the comma after > "protocol". > > Page 11, 1st bullet item, 2nd sentence: change "of" to "or". > > Page 11, 3rd bullet item, 3rd sentence: remove the comma after "[RFC5444]". > > Page 12, 3rd bullet item: change the comma to a semicolon. > > Page 13, Section 4.5 title: append a comma after "Addresses". > > Page 13, Section 4.5, 3rd bullet item: change "an" to "a". > > Page 14, 4th bullet item: delete the comma after "Message". > > Page 14, last paragraph: add a comma after "absence" and delete one following > "location". > > Page 15, 1st full paragraph: insert "it" before "could". > > Page 15, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence: change "routers" to "router's" or > "routers'". > > Page 15, 4th paragraph, 2nd sentence: change the comma after TLV to a > semicolon. > > Page 15, 5th paragraph: delete the commas after "Type" and "Value". > > Page 17, 1st partial paragraph, 1st full sentence: change "MPR_WILLNG" to > "MPR_WILLING". > > Page 17, 1st full bullet item, 1st sentence: Strike the comma after > "[RFC7182]". > > Page 17, Section 5, 1st paragraph: delete the comma. > > Page 17, Section 5, 1st paragraph after the bullet items: change the comma > after "structural" to a period. Capitalize the follow "they". Insert "are" > before "field lengths" if that makes sense. > > Page 17, last paragraph: append a comma after "Block". > > Page 18, 2nd bullet item: add a comma after "Block". Delete the comma after > "TLV". > > Page 18, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence: elide the comma after "[RFC5444]". > > Page 18, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence: delete the comma after "accepted". > > Page 18, 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence: remove the comma after "mechanism". > > Page 18, 2nd paragraph, 5th sentence: change "4 bit" to "4-bit". > > Page 18, Section 6, 1st sentence: delete the commas following "different", > "same", "specification", and "information". > > Page 18, Section 6, 2nd sentence: change the comma following "[RFC5444]" to a > period. Capitalize the following "any". > > Page 19, 2nd to last paragraph, 1st sentence: change the comma after "only" > to a semicolon. > > Page 19, 2nd to last paragraph, 2nd sentence: change the comma after "6.2)" > to a semicolon. > > Page 19, last paragraph, 1st sentence: strike the comma after the 4th > occurrence of "addresses". > > Page 19, last paragraph, 2nd sentence: append a comma after "example". > > Page 20, Section 6.2, 1st paragraph: delete the comma. > > Page 20, 1st bullet item: remove the comma after "straightforward". > > Page 20, 2nd bullet item: change the second comma to a period. Capitalize > the following "see". > > Page 21, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence: elide the comma after "advice". > > Page 21, 2nd paragraph, last sentence: I can't parse this sentence. Consider > rewriting for clarity. There seems to be a missing clause. > > Page 22, bullet item: delete the comma after "allowed". > > Page 24, Appendix A, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: delete all of the commas. > > Page 24, Appendix A, 1st paragraph after the bullet items, 2nd sentence: > delete both commas. > > Page 25, Appendix B, 1st sentence: append a comma after "valuedness". > > Page 25, Appendix B, 2nd sentence: remove the comma following "creation". > > Page 25, Appendix B, 3rd sentence: change the comma after "independent" to a > period. Capitalize the following "for". > > ******************************************************************** > This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient and > may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please delete > it from your system and notify the sender. > You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or distribute > its contents to any other person. > ******************************************************************** > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
