IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-impl-survey-results-02.txt

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Wed, 09 October 2013 20:31 UTC

Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AE8921F9E3F for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 13:31:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.564
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.564 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.035, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fgeSC6bDoDtw for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 13:31:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [193.234.218.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C011121F9D74 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 13:31:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF6F92CCAE; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 23:31:09 +0300 (EEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jeOfyq-wagUa; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 23:31:08 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D67812CC48; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 23:31:08 +0300 (EEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\))
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <522D24D5.1010409@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 23:31:08 +0300
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <170F3613-9EAB-430E-BAF9-41E43E8231C3@piuha.net>
References: <522D24D5.1010409@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508)
Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-impl-survey-results.all@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-impl-survey-results-02.txt
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 20:31:15 -0000

Thank you for the review, Brian! And thank you Andy for the changes. I think the draft can move forward, do you Brian have further comments?

Jari

On Sep 9, 2013, at 4:31 AM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> 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-pwe3-vccv-impl-survey-results-02.txt (Informational)
> Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
> Review Date: 2013-09-09
> IETF LC End Date: 2013-09-23
> IESG Telechat date:
> 
> Summary:  Almost ready
> --------
> 
> 
> Minor Issues:
> -------------
> 
> I found the Abstract too complicated and detailed, and the first paragraph of
> the Introduction too simple and general. Personally, I'd be inclined to
> swap them, with minor adjustments.
> 
>> Note that the intention of this document is to not draw conclusions
>> based upon these results, but rather to simply report the results to
>> the PWE3 working group for its use when developing other drafts.
> 
> OK, but wouldn't it be reasonable to include a short "summary of results"
> section? You leave the reader to swallow a whole lot of detailed answers
> rather than providing an overview.
> 
>> The responding companies are listed below
>> in Section 2.1.
> ...
>> No provisions were made for anonymity.
> 
> Were they told in advance that their names would be published? I think this needs to
> be made clear. (Compare RFC6036, where we had a number of respondents that we validated,
> but who requested to remain anonymous in the published results.)
> 
> I think the second paragraph of Security Considerations would fit better
> in section 1.1. "PW/VCCV Survey Overview" where you describe the methodology.
> 
> Editorial:
> ----------
> 
> The last sentence of the Abstract is ungrammatical and also conveys no new information.
> It could be deleted.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email