Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art review of draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-06.txt
Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net> Wed, 28 January 2009 05:10 UTC
Return-Path: <gen-art-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: gen-art-archive@optimus.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-gen-art-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81CAB3A63EC; Tue, 27 Jan 2009 21:10:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: gen-art@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DFDA3A6951 for <gen-art@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Jan 2009 21:10:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.123, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_SUB_OBFU_Q1=0.227]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lf4s6cb+5HbC for <gen-art@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Jan 2009 21:10:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from exprod7og116.obsmtp.com (exprod7og116.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.219]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36B023A68A6 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Jan 2009 21:10:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from source ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob116.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKSX/ou33TkXnYs2m+nfz/XzYl7QFuFjwU@postini.com; Tue, 27 Jan 2009 21:10:27 PST
Received: from p-emfe01-sac.jnpr.net (66.129.254.72) by P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.336.0; Tue, 27 Jan 2009 21:05:44 -0800
Received: from p-emsmtp03.jnpr.net ([66.129.254.54]) by p-emfe01-sac.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 27 Jan 2009 21:05:44 -0800
Received: from emailwf1.jnpr.net ([10.10.2.33]) by p-emsmtp03.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 27 Jan 2009 21:05:44 -0800
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 00:03:04 -0500
Message-ID: <3525C9833C09ED418C6FD6CD9514668C058E6293@emailwf1.jnpr.net>
In-Reply-To: <6FCA407DD22F4186BA34ABA8A802AC77@your029b8cecfe>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Gen-art review of draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-06.txt
Thread-Index: AcmA0kmWuIG7H/rfRiGssLrE3KOiEgAMxOFw
References: <497ED457.2040601@ericsson.com> <3525C9833C09ED418C6FD6CD9514668C058E60D4@emailwf1.jnpr.net> <6FCA407DD22F4186BA34ABA8A802AC77@your029b8cecfe>
From: Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net>
To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Jan 2009 05:05:44.0046 (UTC) FILETIME=[12B5C8E0:01C98106]
Cc: draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs@tools.ietf.org, gen-art@ietf.org, ccamp-chairs@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art review of draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-06.txt
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/gen-art>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: gen-art-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: gen-art-bounces@ietf.org
It seems pretty clear that the comment actually refers to the "Conventions used in this document" section. Ross -----Original Message----- From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk] Sent: 27 January 2009 17:55 To: Ross Callon; Gonzalo Camarillo Cc: gen-art@ietf.org; ccamp-chairs@tools.ietf.org; draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: Gen-art review of draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-06.txt Sure. Whatever. Actually I am completely baffled by this comment as the terminology section in this I-D is Section 2. We are talking about the same I-D aren't we? draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-06.txt All I see after the Abstract is a section with RFC 2119 language. Maybe this should be toned differently for a requirements draft, but I find it useful and helpful to use 2119 language in requirements documents. As to the placement of 2119 boilerplate we should observe that the RFC Editor will always position this where he thinks it appropriate in an RFC and this has nothing to do with whether the document is ready for publication. Sometimes, it is true, this is immediately after the Introduction, and sometimes it is immediately after the Abstract. See http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5316.txt and http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc5440.txt for examples of each. Thanks, Adrian PS In case there should be any doubt, I really do appreciate the work done by the GenArt review team to improve the quality of our RFCs. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ross Callon" <rcallon@juniper.net> To: "Gonzalo Camarillo" <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com> Cc: <gen-art@ietf.org>; <ccamp-chairs@tools.ietf.org>; <draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs@tools.ietf.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 8:17 PM Subject: RE: Gen-art review of draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-06.txt I proposed to the authors to put in an RFC editor's note to cover your comment. If all are fine with this, then we should be ready to put this on an IESG telechat. Thanks, Ross -----Original Message----- From: Gonzalo Camarillo [mailto:Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com] Sent: 27 January 2009 04:31 To: draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs@tools.ietf.org Cc: Ross Callon; gen-art@ietf.org; ccamp-chairs@tools.ietf.org Subject: Gen-art review of draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-06.txt Hi, I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see 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. Draft: draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-06.txt Reviewer: Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com> Review Date: 27 January 2009 Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an Informational RFC. Comments: The Terminology Section is not usually appended to the Abstract. It is usually placed after the Introduction as a regular section. Thanks, Gonzalo _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
- [Gen-art] Gen-art review of draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-a… Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art review of draft-ietf-ccamp-… Ross Callon
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art review of draft-ietf-ccamp-… Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art review of draft-ietf-ccamp-… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art review of draft-ietf-ccamp-… Ross Callon
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art review of draft-ietf-ccamp-… Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art review of draft-ietf-ccamp-… Diego Caviglia