Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ccamp-attribute-bnf-02

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

Sounds just right to me.  Much thanks.

Lou

On 10/18/2011 6:06 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> There is already an RFC Editor Note saying...
> 
> Please edit for consistency:
>     The objects are called "LSP Attributes" and "LSP Required Attributes"
> 
> Let me know if anything else needs to be added.
> 
> Thanks,
> Adrian
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Lou Berger [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: 18 October 2011 22:56
>> To: Vijay K. Gurbani
>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Adrian
>> Farrel; General Area Review Team
>> Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ccamp-attribute-bnf-02
>>
>> Vijay,
>>
>> Please see below.
>>
>> On 10/17/2011 5:18 PM, Vijay K. Gurbani wrote:
>>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
>>> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
>>> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>>>
>>> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
>>> you may receive.
>>>
>>> Document: draft-ietf-ccamp-attribute-bnf-02
>>> Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani
>>> Review Date: Oct-17-2011
>>> IETF LC End Date: Not known.
>>> IESG Telechat date: Oct-20-2011
>>>
>>> Summary: This draft is ready as a Proposed Standard.
>>>
>>> Major issues: 0
>>> Minor issues: 2
>>> Nits/editorial comments: 3
>>>
>>> Minor:
>>> * S2: In the phrase, "... implementations must be capable ..."
>>>   is this a normative MUST?
>>>
>>> * S3: In the phrase, "... implementations must be capable ..."
>>>   is this a normative MUST?
>>>
>>
>> These are both in text quoted from RFC5420, so the comment applies to
>> that RFC.  Clearly we can't change it in this document. (BTW usage of
>> 'must' as in the English/informative usage is still legitimate.)
>>
>>> Nits:
>>> * Abstract: s/how LSP attribute are/how LSP attributes are/
>>>
>>
>> "LSP Attributes" is a term/name defined in RFC5420.
>>
>> This does point out that in three places in the document, the following
>> is needed:
>>  s/LSP attributes/LSP Attributes
>>
>>> * S1: "Two LSP Attributes related objects ..." --- This reads
>>>   funny.  Did you mean "Two LSP Attribute related objects..."?
>>>   This oversight, if indeed it is an oversight, is repeated else-
>>>   where in the document as well.
>>>
>>>   At other places (e.g., S3.2.1), you simply use "LSP Attribute object".
>>>   So I am not sure which one is correct.
>>>
>>
>> good catch!  it should be:
>> s/LSP Attribute/LSP Attributes
>>
>>> * S2.1: s/LSP attributed related objects/LSP attributes related objects/
>>>    or maybe "LSP Attribute related objects"?
>>
>> another good catch:
>>  s/LSP attributed/LSP Attributes
>>>
>>> - vijay
>>
>> Much thanks!
>>
>> Lou
> 
> 
> 
> 
>