[Gen-art] Genart review of draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601-update-survey-report-02.txt

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

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 wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.



Document:                         draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601-update-survey-report-02.txt

Reviewer:                           Christer Holmberg

Review Date:                     11 September 2013

IETF LC End Date:             3 September, 2013

IESG Telechat date:         12 September, 2013



Summary:           The document is otherwise ready for publication, but contains some editorial issues that I suggest that the authors address.



Major issues: -



Minor issues: -



Nits/editorial comments:



General:



Q_GEN_1:           The RFC referencing is done in an inconsistent way: sometimes [RFC XXXX], sometimes (RFC XXXX), and sometimes RFC XXXX. I suggest to always use [RFC XXXX], OR to use [RFC XXXX] at the first occurrence, and then RFC XXXX.





Q_GEN_2:           The document mixes "PIM-SM" and "PIM Sparse-Mode" terminology. I suggest to use consistent terminology.







Section 2.2:



Q_2-2_1:             s/"five other anonymous operators"/ "five anonymous operators"





Section 2.2.1:



Q_2-2-1_1:         I suggest to replace "In the last fourteen years" with "Since <insert the year you are referencing>".





Section 2.3:



Q_2-3_1:             I suggest to replace "Eight vendors have reported PIM Sparse-Mode implementations" with "Eight vendors responded to the survey", to be consistent with the wording in section 2.2.





Section 6:



Q_6_1: Why is the section number needed? Why simply not call it "Appendix A. Questionnaire"?





Regards,



Christer