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

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

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