[Gen-art] Review of draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-11

2017-01-25 Thread Brian Carpenter 
Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review result: Ready with Nits

Gen-ART Last CAll review of draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-11.txt

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
. 

Document: draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-11.txt
Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review Date: 2017-01-26
IETF LC End Date: 2017-02-15 
IESG Telechat date:  

Summary: Ready with nits


Comment:


I've been tracking this draft since the start and I'm very supportive
of it.
I have reviewed the changes since my previous review of -08, and I am
happy
them. I have made some comments on issues raised by other reviwers,
but as
one of them said perfection is impossible.

Nits:


> 7. Evaluating Alternative Technologies in IETF Working Groups
...
> technology in violation if this principle if there is a very good

s/if this principle/of this principle/

> 13. Changes Since RFC 3979 and RFC 4879
> 16. Changes Since RFC 3979

Should the preamble to these sections state that they are provided
for informational purposes only and that in case of doubt the text 
of sections 1-12 prevails?

Should these two sections be merged?

___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-mmusic-4572-update-11

2017-01-25 Thread Christer Holmberg 
Hi Elwyn,

>That's all fine.  Re s4, para 2: First, i realised I missed another instance 
>of 'new' in the abstract.
>I think that 'the' is correct in the new [sic] version in both places.  It's 
>pernickety but when it was
>'a new' what you have is shorthand for "a new protocol identifier to be called 
>'TCP/TLS'..."  (an
>addition to the existng list) whereas because the identifier is no longer new 
>we now have "the protocol
>identifier [named] 'TCP/TLS'...".

My suggestion was to drop “new”, but to keep “a”:

“a protocol identifier, 'TCP/TLS', which…”

But, I’m fine using “the” :)

Regards,

Christer



Sent from Samsung tablet.

 Original message 
From: Christer Holmberg 
>
Date: 25/01/2017 13:40 (GMT+00:00)
To: Elwyn Davies >, 
gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: 
draft-ietf-mmusic-4572-update@ietf.org,
 i...@ietf.org, mmu...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Review of draft-ietf-mmusic-4572-update-11

Hi Elwyn,

Thanks for your review! See inline.

Nits/editorial comments:

>s1, para 2: s/TLS protocol/The TLS protocol/ (as per RFC 4572)

I will fix as suggested.


>s4, para 2: s/a new protocol identifier/the protocol identifier/ (it
>isn't new any more)

I am happy to remove ³new², but doesn¹t ³a² still sound better than ³the²?


>s5.1: Suggest s/m- line/"m" line/  for consistency with s3.4

I will replace with single quotes (Œm¹), for consistency with s3.4 and s4.


>s5.1, para 1: s/e.g./e.g.,/

I will fix as suggested.


>s5.1, para 4: s/that each used certificate matches/that each
>certificate used matches/

I will fix as suggested.


>s5.1, para 5: s/each used certificate matches/each certificate used
>matches/

I will fix as suggested.

>s8, para 5: ' This specification creates a new IANA registry named
>"Hash Function Textual Names".'
>The registry is no longer new.  Perhaps s/creates a new IANA
>registry/takes over the IANA registry from RFC 4572/

I suggest:

"This specification takes over the IANA registry named "Hash Function
Textual Names², that was created in RFC 4572.  It will not be part of
the SDP Parameters.²


Regards,

Christer
___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-mmusic-4572-update-11

2017-01-25 Thread Elwyn Davies 
Hi, Christer.
Thanks for the rapid response.
That's all fine.  Re s4, para 2: First, i realised I missed another instance of 
'new' in the abstract.  I think that 'the' is correct in the new [sic] version 
in both places.  It's pernickety but when it was 'a new' what you have is 
shorthand for "a new protocol identifier to be called 'TCP/TLS'..."  (an 
addition to the existng list) whereas because the identifier is no longer new 
we now have "the protocol identifier [named] 'TCP/TLS'...".   
Cheers,Elwyn
Sent from Samsung tablet.
 Original message From: Christer Holmberg 
 Date: 25/01/2017  13:40  (GMT+00:00) To: Elwyn 
Davies , gen-art@ietf.org Cc: 
draft-ietf-mmusic-4572-update@ietf.org, i...@ietf.org, mmu...@ietf.org 
Subject: Re: Review of draft-ietf-mmusic-4572-update-11 
Hi Elwyn,

Thanks for your review! See inline.

Nits/editorial comments:

>s1, para 2: s/TLS protocol/The TLS protocol/ (as per RFC 4572)

I will fix as suggested.


>s4, para 2: s/a new protocol identifier/the protocol identifier/ (it
>isn't new any more)

I am happy to remove ³new², but doesn¹t ³a² still sound better than ³the²?


>s5.1: Suggest s/m- line/"m" line/  for consistency with s3.4

I will replace with single quotes (Œm¹), for consistency with s3.4 and s4.


>s5.1, para 1: s/e.g./e.g.,/

I will fix as suggested.


>s5.1, para 4: s/that each used certificate matches/that each
>certificate used matches/

I will fix as suggested.


>s5.1, para 5: s/each used certificate matches/each certificate used
>matches/

I will fix as suggested.

>s8, para 5: ' This specification creates a new IANA registry named
>"Hash Function Textual Names".'
>The registry is no longer new.  Perhaps s/creates a new IANA
>registry/takes over the IANA registry from RFC 4572/

I suggest:

 "This specification takes over the IANA registry named "Hash Function
 Textual Names², that was created in RFC 4572.  It will not be part of
 the SDP Parameters.²


Regards,

Christer

___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art