Re: [apps-review] Request for review: draft-ietf-xcon-ccmp-12

[SM <[e-mail]>]

Hi Henry,
At 08:33 15-05-2011, Henry S. Thompson wrote:
>Here's my draft response.  This is the first review I've done for the
>IETF, and so I'm sending it only to the list in the first instance --
>if some others here could briefly review my review, and let me know if
>it's along the lines you would expect, takes the right tone, etc., I'd
>be very grateful.  In particular, if it's really not appropriate at
>this stage in the process to raise the kind of design questions I ask
>below wrt 4.2 and 4.3, I'll just remove them.

It is appropriate to raise any questions which can help improve the 
document.  I suggest leaving the questions.

The first review is usually the difficult one.  What I generally like 
to get from a review is a different perspective and you provided 
that.  You struck the right tone.  Some people take a direct 
approach, some have a diplomatic approach and some people have their own style.

>Summary: [Provide a one-sentence summary of the review. Examples
>include "This draft is ready for publication as an Experimental RFC",
>"This draft is almost ready for publication as an Informational RFC
>but has a few issues that should be fixed before publication", and
>"This draft is not ready for publication as a Proposed Standard and
>should be revised before publication".]

There are several alternatives available here.  The reviewer should 
pick one of them.  You can diverge from the template as the examples 
are there as guidance.

>Nits: [list editorial issues such as typographical errors, preferably
>by section number]

The reviewer does not have to look for editorial issues.  If you find 
them, list them here.  Otherwise, you can omit this section or leave it empty.

If you are comfortable with the review, you can post it after fixing 
the two points I commented on.  If you need a clarification on any of 
my comments, please do not hesitate to ask me.

Best regards,
-sm