Hi Francis, Thanks for your review. I’ve addressed the nits as you’ve suggest, although there are a couple of notes inline.
> On Oct 9, 2017, at 6:32 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-sidrops-bgpsec-rollover-02.txt > Reviewer: Francis Dupont > Review Date: 20171007 > IETF LC End Date: 20171017 > IESG Telechat date: unknown > > Summary: Ready > > Major issues: None > > Minor issues: None > > Nits/editorial comments: > IMHO the language itself needs some improvements. Unfortunately I am not > a native English writer so I can only be a limited help... > > - Abstract page 1: bad wording in > "... certificates BGPsec router certificates" > > - Abstract page 1: Normal -> normal > > - Abstract page 1: "creating" does not fit in grammar. Perhaps > "which create”? BEW: I’ve made this much simpler and removed “create” altogether: “The rollover must be carefully managed in order to synchronize the distribution of router public keys with BGPsec Update messages verified with those router public keys." > > - Abstract page 1: I suggest accomplished -> performed > (this point is typical of why a native English writer will really help) > > - ToC page 2 and 4/4.2 page 7: titles of 4 and 4.2 are too close BEW: I’m not sure what I can do here, and looking at the .txt file I don’t see the spacing issue. I’ve used xml2rfc, which chooses the way titles are spaced. Can you clarify? > > - ToC page 2 and 7 page 9: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments > > - 2 page 2: I suggest > the local policies of a network. -> the local policies of network. BEW: How about "This process will need to happen at regular intervals, normally due to policies of the local network.”? > > - 2 page 3: as the 2119 lowe case keyword issue is now solved you may > use "may" as in "documents may reference" but perhaps with an upgrade > to the standard 2119 reference text. I am asking to the gen-art what > to do (and I expect to get an answer before the LC). BEW: Thanks, will wait for guidance. Thanks, Brian > > - 2 page 3, 3.1 and 4 page 6: > roll-over -> rollover (i.e. keep one spelling) > > - 4.2 page 7: i.e. -> i.e., > > Regards > > [email protected] -- Brian Weis Security, CSG, Cisco Systems Telephone: +1 408 526 4796 Email: [email protected] _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
