[Gen-art] Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-imss-fc-fcs-mib-02.txt

> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for
> draft-ietf-imss-fc-fcs-mib-02.txt

Thanks for your review.

> For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
> <http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html>.
> 
> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
> you may receive.
> 
> Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits
> that should be fixed before publication.
> 
> Comments:
> 
> Minor:
> ======
> 
> * Section 1: Introduction
> 
>    I found this sentence strange. Is there any reason to keep it?
> 
>     This memo includes boilerplate which uses only one of the following
>     terms, but is nevertheless required to mention all of the keywords in
>     the following statement:
> 
>        The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
>        NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL"
>        in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC
>        2119 [RFC2119].

Without this sentence, the boilerplate implies that all of the listed
keywords are present in the document.  Since the boilerplate cannot be
changed, the sentence was included to avoid the erroneous implication.

> Editorial:
> ==========
> 
> * No expiration date for draft on the first and last pages. According to
>
> http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt
> ===========================================
> 
>     A document expiration date should appear on the first and last page
>     of the Internet-Draft.  The expiration date is 185 days following the
>     submission of the document as an Internet-Draft.  Use of the phrase
>     "expires in six months" or "expires in 185 days" is not acceptable.

The footer (on every page) contains the expiry date.

> * Intended Status of the document is not specified in the draft. (I 
> found it is Proposed Standard using the ID Tracker)

The guidelines say:

   The Internet-Draft should neither state nor imply that it has any
   standards status; to do so conflicts with the role of the RFC Editor
   and the IESG.  The title of the document should not imply a status.
   Avoid the use of the terms Standard, Proposed, Draft, Experimental,
   Historic, Required, Recommended, Elective, or Restricted in the title
   of the Internet-Draft.  Indicating what status the document is aimed
   for is OK, but should be done with the words "Intended status:
   <status>".

Since the I-D neither states nor implies that it has any standards status,
I believe it complies.

Keith.

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art