IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Thu, 12 September 2013 10:35 UTC

Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
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 281A611E8188 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Sep 2013 03:35:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.611
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.611 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.012, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 0-yu2FoXJO3y for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Sep 2013 03:35:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [193.234.218.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77CD511E815F for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Sep 2013 03:35:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C89132CC6D; Thu, 12 Sep 2013 13:35:27 +0300 (EEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Pp8puWmCHSIt; Thu, 12 Sep 2013 13:35:27 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A2832CC48; Thu, 12 Sep 2013 13:35:24 +0300 (EEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\))
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C49F1F5@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 18:35:22 +0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <33DB9115-A427-45C7-B16D-B11346296538@piuha.net>
References: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C49F1F5@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508)
Cc: "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601-update-survey-report.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601-update-survey-report.all@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart review of draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601-update-survey-report-02.txt
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
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: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 10:35:33 -0000

Thank you for review of this document, Christer. These reviews are important for me.

Authors, have you seen Christer's review, and do you have a comment?

Jari

On Sep 11, 2013, at 6:26 PM, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> 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 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
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email