Francis, thanks for your review. I have not seen a response yet so I’ve flagged your review in my No Objection ballot.
Alissa > On Oct 18, 2018, at 4:59 AM, Francis Dupont <francis.dup...@fdupont.fr> 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-clue-protocol-17.txt > Reviewer: Francis Dupont > Review Date: 20181017 > IETF LC End Date: 20181017 > IESG Telechat date: unknown > > Summary: Ready > > Major issues: None > > Minor issues: None > > Nits/editorial comments: > I have a problem with the CLUE abbrev itself (which BTW is not in the > RFC Editor abbrev list > https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt): > in theory the abbrev should be introduced at its first use in the Abstract > and in the body (so 1 introduction) but this seems to be overkilling > and not really solving the issue so I have a better proposal: ask > the RFC Editor if it is not possible to add the CLUE abbrev in the > list as a well known one. > > - Abstract page 1: you use SCTP over DTLS so a transport over another > transport. At the first view it looks strange but in fact it should be > the simplest solution to add security to SCTP so I have no concern about > this. > > - 4 page 5 twice: version numbers are qualified as "single digit" which > does not match the syntax 5 figure 1 page 8 nor examples: please remove > these. > > - 5 page 8: the version number syntax. BTW it allows a minor version > to begin by a 0 followed by other digits which perhaps is not what > you want. > > - 5 page 8: same comment about examples: a priori 1.01 is legal and > it is not clear if it is the same than 1.1 ? > > - 5 page 8 (before the previous one): procotol -> protocol > > - 5.1 page 11: IMHO in "<supportedVersion> is provided ..." > it shoild be <supportedVersions>. > > - 5.4 page 13: I noted you use the UK spelling for the type name > (Acknowledgement vs. Acknowledgment). > > - 5.7 page 17 figure 9 and 12.4.2 page 65: > Please remove the final dot in " Low-level request error." > > - 11 page 60: defence -> defense (UK vs US English) > > - 12.4.1 page 64: estabilsh -> establish > > - 12.4.2 page 65: Conficting -> Conflicting > > Regards > > francis.dup...@fdupont.fr > > _______________________________________________ > 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
