Francesca, thanks for your reviews. Al, thanks for addressing Francesca’s review. I have entered a No Objection ballot.
Alissa > On May 25, 2018, at 4:24 AM, Francesca Palombini > <francesca.palomb...@ericsson.com> wrote: > > Hi Al, > > Thanks for addressing my comments, it looks good. > > Francesca > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <a...@research.att.com> >> Sent: den 23 maj 2018 15:39 >> To: Francesca Palombini <francesca.palomb...@ericsson.com>; gen- >> a...@ietf.org >> Cc: i...@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ippm-2330-ipv6....@ietf.org >> Subject: RE: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-2330-ipv6-04 >> >> Hi Francesca, >> one last item to resolve, we should be good now. >> see below, >> Al >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Francesca Palombini [mailto:francesca.palomb...@ericsson.com] >>> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2018 3:44 AM >>> To: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <a...@research.att.com>; gen-art@ietf.org >>> Cc: i...@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; >>> draft-ietf-ippm-2330-ipv6....@ietf.org >>> Subject: RE: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-2330-ipv6-04 >>> >>> Hi Al, >>> >>> Thanks for your reply. >>> I cut selected parts of the email to detail some of my comments, see >>> inline. >>> >>> Francesca >>> >> ...snip... >>>>> To be consistent with the first bullet of the list above ("It >>>>> includes a valid IP header: see below for version-specific >>>>> criteria."), I would rephrase the text above with something on the lines >> of: >>>>> >>>>> "For an IPvX (...) packet to be standard-formed, the IPvX-specific >>>>> criteria for a valid IP header are:" >>>> [acm] >>>> Your wording suggestion dropped the clear indication of a requirement. >>>> We are using the RFC2119 terms consistently for requirements. >>>> >>> >>> I was trying to point out that the first part of the section (first >>> bullet >>> list) does not use RFC2119 terms. I read the second bullet list as a >>> "sub- list" of the first one, which is why I was suggesting removing >>> the REQUIRED term. Or you could rephrase the first list to use REQUIRED >> too. >>> Anyway, this is nit-picking. Feel free to disregard. >>> >> [acm] >> I see your point now, and I changed the sentence introducing the initial (IP >> version-agnostic list) to read: >> >> A packet is standard-formed if it meets all of the following REQUIRED >> criteria: > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
