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

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

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

Attachment: signature.asc