Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-host-scanning-07.txt

Francis: thank you very much for your review.

Fernando: I think it is a reasonable practice to refer to the obsoleted document
in the abstract (and in the Updates-from-RFCnnnn section).

Jari

On 19 Aug 2015, at 02:52, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> wrote:

> Hi, Francis,
> 
> Thanks so much for your review! Please find my comments in-line....
> 
> 
> On 07/17/2015 08:38 PM, Francis Dupont wrote:
>> 
>> Nits/editorial comments:
>> - Abstract page 1: usually there is no very explicit reference to the
>>  RFC the document obsoletes. IMHO this case could be a reasonable
>>  exception.
> 
> FWIW, in the past, I was asked to explicitly note in the abstract what
> RFC this document was obsoleting/updating.
> 
> 
> 
>> - ToC page 3 and 18 page 25: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments
>>  (I use a US English spell checker, I am trying to switch to
>>   a UK one but both raise errors for the other alternative...
>>   I suggest to ask the RFC Editor to uniformize/uniformise the
>>   English variant...)
> 
> Yes... I think they do this by default.
> 
> 
>> 
>> - 1 page 3 and many other places: e.g. -> e.g.,
>> 
>> - A.1 page 29 (and other places): I have a concern about OS names,
>>  for instance I prefer Microsoft Windows to simply Windows.
>>  BTW the current offical name of Mac OS (MacOS) X is (Apple) OS X.
> 
> We'll double-check and update as needed.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Best regards,
> --
> Fernando Gont
> SI6 Networks
> e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
> PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-host-scanning-07.txt

Attachment: signature.asc