Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-p2pi-cooper-workshop-report-01.txt

Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com> Mon, 27 April 2009 22:51 UTC

Return-Path: <fluffy@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 140863A6836 for <gen-art@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:51:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.593
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.593 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.006, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XtY-9+NlfjXv for <gen-art@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:51:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 288773A67EB for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:51:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.40,257,1238976000"; d="scan'208";a="159483510"
Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Apr 2009 22:52:51 +0000
Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n3RMqpPU016548; Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:52:51 -0700
Received: from [192.168.4.177] (rcdn-fluffy-8711.cisco.com [10.99.9.18]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n3RMqoUl024700; Mon, 27 Apr 2009 22:52:50 GMT
From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
To: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <49CB2202.6050100@ericsson.com>
Impp: xmpp:cullenfluffyjennings@jabber.org
References: <49CB2202.6050100@ericsson.com>
Message-Id: <41E59DFE-823A-4FF3-836C-B020A94F3E36@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3)
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 16:52:49 -0600
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1464; t=1240872771; x=1241736771; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim2002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=fluffy@cisco.com; z=From:=20Cullen=20Jennings=20<fluffy@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20Gen-ART=20review=20of=20draft-p2pi-coop er-workshop-report-01.txt |Sender:=20; bh=16sSn3SMBEdD0qve/Sw3vvVkFF0tVj9/aKKeY7IlS9U=; b=kLmhpDscuaHFaACRg9hkvl0Uy0OCW/JG0lfedVNfIZolPTh03gq5uNBoE/ wUkz/OnChXfN3tLK0iwdvS91Wp7xjuncxmMF9uqLiatncjnbXcfKL0FJdXFh zbHSFzo8y/;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=fluffy@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; );
Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, draft-p2pi-cooper-workshop-report@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-p2pi-cooper-workshop-report-01.txt
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 22:51:31 -0000

Thanks for the review.

On Mar 26, 2009, at 12:34 AM, Suresh Krishnan wrote:

> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for
> draft-p2pi-cooper-workshop-report-01.txt
>
> For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
> <http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html>.
>
> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
> you may receive.
>
> Summary: This draft is well written and easy to read. I cannot  
> comment much on the contents of the draft since it is just reporting  
> events that occurred at a workshop. I think the draft is ready for  
> publication as Informational RFC.
>
> Meta comment
> ============
> I think this document should be Informational and not Standards  
> track as stated in the draft.

Yes, this was a slip up with xml2rfc. It is going forward as  
Informational and I inserted an RFC Ed note to make sure this did not  
get lost.


>
>
> Editorial comments
> ==================
Thanks - I have put in an RFC Ed note for all three of these.

>
>
> * Page 4:
> s/properietary/proprietary/
> s/seperate/separate/
>
> * Page 8:
> AQM is undefined. Did you mean QAM? Either way please expand at  
> first use.

Adaptive Queue Management was meant here. I will put in a note to  
expand that as you suggested.

>
>
> * References
> The reference with anchor [RFC2474] points to RFC2475. Please fix it  
> to read RFC2474.
>



> Thanks
> Suresh