Re: [Gen-art] (full) review of draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-25.txt

[Francis Dupont <[e-mail]>]

 In your previous mail you wrote:

   [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] writes:
   
   ... 
   > Nits/editorial comments:
   >  Technical:
   > 
   >   - 13 page 147: I have a concern about 'TLS or IPsec handshake' because
   >    there is no such thing like 'IPsec handshake'. I suggest to ask IPsec
   >    people to check if this must be changed and if yes to get a better
   >    wording.
   
   This seems _very_ nit-picky to me ;-).  While technically correct, IKE is
   often colloquially referred to as the IPsec "handshake", e.g., by no less a
   personage than Radia Perlman (see
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-tutorial-01).
   
=> what about: IPsec -> IPsec/IKE? It is more correct so everybody
will be happy.

   > 
   >  Large scope editial:
   > 
   >   - Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments
   >    (ToC page 6, A. page 152 and in the text itself, for instance 1 page
   > 7
   >     in Failover)
   
   According to the Oxford Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language,

=> IETF/RFC Editor adopted the American spelling without the 'e'

   both
   "acknowledgement" and "acknowledgment" are valid spellings, the difference
   being that the former is the British usage & the latter the American.  I
   prefer the British usage because it's just way more classy.  Deal with it
   :-).
   
=> in general we should use American speliing in RFCs (even this worries
Brittish and globally European persons who learnt UK-English as school :-).

Thanks

[e-mail]

PS: please use the RFC Editor service for fixing editorial details.