RE: [Adslmib] Non-technical comments on draft-ietf-adslmib-vdsl-e xt-mcm -02.txt
Menachem.Dodge@infineon.com Wed, 24 March 2004 12:22 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA17931 for <adslmib-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 07:22:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B67Oa-0005Ne-IX for adslmib-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 07:22:08 -0500
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i2OCM8af020681 for adslmib-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 07:22:08 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B67Oa-0005NU-E8 for adslmib-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 07:22:08 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA17917 for <adslmib-web-archive@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 07:22:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B67OZ-0007cc-00 for adslmib-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 07:22:07 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B67NZ-0007Oc-00 for adslmib-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 07:21:06 -0500
Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B67MY-00076t-00 for adslmib-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 07:20:02 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B67MY-0005Hk-2P; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 07:20:02 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B67Lq-0005Ep-5Z for adslmib@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 07:19:18 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA17861 for <adslmib@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 07:19:17 -0500 (EST)
From: Menachem.Dodge@infineon.com
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B67Lp-00070h-00 for adslmib@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 07:19:17 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B67L8-0006oK-00 for adslmib@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 07:18:34 -0500
Received: from mail5.infineon.com ([203.126.245.197]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B67KQ-0006a2-00 for adslmib@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 07:17:50 -0500
Received: from sinse004.ap.infineon.com (sinse004.ap.infineon.com [172.17.65.75]) by mail5.infineon.com (8.11.7p1+Sun/8.11.7) with ESMTP id i2OCIaa21555; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 20:18:37 +0800 (SGT)
Received: by sinse004.ap.infineon.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <HRKX4D8Z>; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 20:17:41 +0800
Message-ID: <AD2F581BD7340A4C908AF1AFB066EA3B0CA3E6@ntah901e.savan.com>
To: randy_presuhn@mindspring.com, adslmib@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Adslmib] Non-technical comments on draft-ietf-adslmib-vdsl-e xt-mcm -02.txt
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 20:12:26 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: adslmib-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: adslmib-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: adslmib@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib>, <mailto:adslmib-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: ADSLMIB <adslmib.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:adslmib@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:adslmib-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib>, <mailto:adslmib-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL, NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no version=2.60
Hi Randy, Thanks very much for your comments. I'll change the order so that the "Acknowledgements" section appears before the "Security Considerations" section. Actually, I used the VDSL MIB RFC 3728 as a guide to the ordering of the paragraphs. Did I miss something here ? Regards, Menachem -----Original Message----- From: adslmib-admin@ietf.org [mailto:adslmib-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Randy Presuhn Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 8:04 AM To: adslmib@ietf.org Subject: [Adslmib] Non-technical comments on draft-ietf-adslmib-vdsl-ext-mcm -02.txt Hi - A few non-technical comments on draft-ietf-adslmib-vdsl-ext-mcm-02.txt: Purely mechanical: 0x09 at line 1 position 1 trailing blanks make line 75 too long (74 characters) Editorial: - sometimes has only one space following period at the end of a sentence. should be two. - Some abbreviations not expanded on first use: ETSI, ITU, DSLF, VACM, PMD, and SCM - section 2.1: "MIBS" -> "MIBs" - section 2.3: "monitioring" -> "monitoring" - indentation oddities: section 6.1: DSLTFR057, RFC2580, RFC2586 section 7 is indented one character position more than others - the order of the following sections deviates from the order recommended in draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-07.txt: |5. Security Considerations ....................................... 17 |6. References .................................................... 18 |6.1 Normative References .......................................... |18 6.2 Informative References ........................................ 19 |7. Acknowledgements .............................................. 19 - section 6.1: punctuation is inconsistent. for example: old: [ETSI2701] ETSI TS 101 270-1 V1.2.1 "Transmission and Multiplexing new: [ETSI2701] ETSI TS 101 270-1 V1.2.1, "Transmission and Multiplexing old: [ETSI2702] ETSI TS 101 270-2 V1.1.1 "Transmission and Multiplexing new: [ETSI2702] ETSI TS 101 270-2 V1.1.1, "Transmission and Multiplexing old: [ITU9931] ITU-T G.993.1 "Very-high-speed digital subscriber line new: [ITU9931] ITU-T G.993.1, "Very-high-speed digital subscriber line old: J., Rose, M. and S. Waldbusser, "Structure of new: J., Rose, M. and S. Waldbusser, "Structure of old: J., Rose, M. and S. Waldbusser, "Textual Conventions new: J., Rose, M. and S. Waldbusser, "Textual Conventions old: [RFC2856] Bierman, A., McCloghrie, K., and R. Presuhn, "Textual new: [RFC2856] Bierman, A., McCloghrie, K. and R. Presuhn, "Textual old: [RFC2863] McCloghrie, K. and F. Kastenholz, "The Interfaces new: [RFC2863] McCloghrie, K. and F. Kastenholz, "The Interfaces old: [RFC3411] Harrington, D., Presuhn, R., and B. Wijnen, "An new: [RFC3411] Harrington, D., Presuhn, R. and B. Wijnen, "An old: [RFC3410] Case, J., Mundy, R., Partain, D. and B. Stewart, new: [RFC3410] Case, J., Mundy, R., Partain, D. and B. Stewart, Although the document uses "MUST NOT" , "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED" and "SHOULD" , there is no reference to RFC 2119. The second "SHOULD" in section 2.4 should be "should", or, better still, the sentence should be re-phrased to remove the word. Randy _______________________________________________ Adslmib mailing list Adslmib@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib _______________________________________________ Adslmib mailing list Adslmib@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib
- RE: [Adslmib] Non-technical comments on draft-iet… Menachem.Dodge
- Re: [Adslmib] Non-technical comments on draft-iet… Randy Presuhn