Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ccamp-attribute-bnf-02
"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Tue, 18 October 2011 22:07 UTC
Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
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 14B9B1F0C35 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 15:07:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 h73B4Xn+eJai for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 15:07:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (asmtp4.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.175]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FA831F0C3E for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 15:07:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p9IM6M3P012248; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 23:06:22 +0100
Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p9IM6JqS012183 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 18 Oct 2011 23:06:20 +0100
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: 'Lou Berger' <lberger@labn.net>, "'Vijay K. Gurbani'" <vkg@bell-labs.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 23:06:18 +0100
Message-ID: <008001cc8de2$2a2d02e0$7e8708a0$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AcyN4iXTSu12S5T+R/qi1CRjaNMdIg==
Content-Language: en-gb
Cc: 'General Area Review Team' <gen-art@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-ccamp-attribute-bnf@tools.ietf.org, dbrungard@att.com
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ccamp-attribute-bnf-02
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
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: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 22:07:06 -0000
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:lberger@labn.net] > Sent: 18 October 2011 22:56 > To: Vijay K. Gurbani > Cc: draft-ietf-ccamp-attribute-bnf@tools.ietf.org; dbrungard@att.com; 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
- [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ccamp-attr… Vijay K. Gurbani
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ccamp-… Lou Berger
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ccamp-… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ccamp-… Vijay K. Gurbani
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ccamp-… Lou Berger