Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-ecrit-additional-data-34.txt

I've addressed all of Francis' comments (which I appreciate) and also 
reviewed all lowercase instances of the key words.

At 2:03 PM +0200 9/3/15, Jari Arkko wrote:

>  Thanks for your review, Francis!
>
>  Can the authors check the comments? Thanks.
>
>  With regards to RFC 2119 keywords, if I understand the point correctly,
>  I wouldn't worry too much about the appearance of lower case keywords,
>  if they indeed are meant to be just English and not keywords. That is the
>  current practice since a long time ago. I don't think we need additional
>  text in the document to explain this. However, if there is a case where these
>  really are meant to be keywords, then they should, I think, be in capital
>  letters.
>
>  Thanks,
>
>  Jari
>
>  On 02 Sep 2015, at 12:19, Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@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
>>
>>  <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>>
>>  Document: draft-ietf-ecrit-additional-data-34.txt
>>  Reviewer: Francis Dupont
>>  Review Date: 20150828
>>  IETF LC End Date: 20150824
>>  IESG Telechat date: 20150903
>>
>>  Summary: Almost Ready
>>
>>  Major issues: None
>>
>>  Minor issues:
>>  This document uses and even redefines RFC 2119 keywords outside the
>>  *formal* wording of RFC 2119: quoting the RFC 2119 (Abstract):
>>  "These words are often capitalized."
>>  This formally means a keyword in lower case is still a keyword which
>>  must (MUST :-) be interpreted as described in RFC 2119. IMHO this is
>>  for very old IETF documents: any IETF document published less than 20
>>  years ago uses full upper case keywords when they have to be interpreted
>>  so this statement in the RFC 2119 Abstract is more source of confusion
>>  than clarification.
>>  If it can be accepted I propose to add an exception for this document
>>  saying that RFC 2119 keywords are capitalized.
>>
>>  Nits/editorial comments:
>>  - Abstract page 1: every emergency call carry -> carries
>>
>>  - 1 page 4: every emergency call carry -> carries
>>
>>  - 2 page 6: the place where I suggest to add that RFC 2119 keywords
>>   are capitalized and in general keywords are case sensitive.
>>
>>  - 4.1.4 page 13: an example of a "may" and a "should" which are not
>>   RFC 2119 keywords but only common English.
>>
>>  - 4.2.1 page 18: neccessarily -> necessarily
>>
>>  - 4.3.8 page 27: defined . -> defined.
>>
>>  - 5.2 page 36 and 5.3 page 38:
>>   I am afraid the provided-by construct in the example is unbalanced
>>   (i.e., <provided-by -> <provided-by>)
>>
>>  - 8 page 62, 9 page 65 (twice): as security and privacy considerations
>>   can be read independently I suggest to replace the 3 "may"s by
>>   equivalent wordings ("can", "be allowed to", etc).
>>
>>  - 10.1.9 page 70: registation -> registration
>>
>>  - 10.4 pages 72 - 76 (many):
>>   The IESG <ietf@ietf.org> -> The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
>>
>>  - 10.6 page 82: ectit@ietf.org -> ecrit@ietf.org
>>
>>  - 11 page 83: benefitted -> benefited
>>
>>  Note I didn't check the schemas (even you had the nice attention to
>>  provide them directly, cf appendix B). I reviewed the 33 version
>>  (so at the exception of spelling errors I gave the 33.txt page numbers)
>>  and verified the 33-34 diff.
>>
>>  Regards
>>
>>  Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr
>>
>>  _______________________________________________
>>  Gen-art mailing list
>>  Gen-art@ietf.org
>>  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
>
>
>  Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>  Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
>  Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
>  Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
>
>  Attachment converted: TiLand:signature 637.asc (    /    ) (02AA4317)

-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
An algorithm must be seen to be believed.  -- Donald Knuth