Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-forces-ceha-08.txt

["Haleplidis Evangelos" <[e-mail]>]

Greetings Francis,

Thank you for your comments. They are currently all being addressed and will
soon have the revised draft.

Regarding the ordering of the definitions, someone should indeed have read
at least the ForCES protocol RFC prior to arriving to this one. But your
comment make sense, therefore I reversed the order having the definitions of
the FE/CE first.

Regards,
Evangelos Haleplidis.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 8:00 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: review of draft-ietf-forces-ceha-08.txt
> 
> 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 resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
> you may receive.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-forces-ceha-08.txt
> Reviewer: Francis Dupont
> Review Date: 20131028
> IETF LC End Date: 20131106
> IESG Telechat date: unknown
> 
> Summary: Ready
> 
> Major issues: None
> 
> Minor issues: None
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
>  - 1 pages 2 and 3: I have a concern with the order of definitions.
>   IMHO there are 3 solutions:
>    * keep the document order arguing definitions are repeated for
>     convenience so it doesn't matter there are backward references
>     (i.e., someone new in the domain should first read referenced RFCs,
>      and at the opposite someone not new in the domain already knows
>      the used acronyms)
> 
>    * introduce each acronym at its first use
> 
>    * same + reorder the definition list to minimize out-of-order
>     internal references
> 
>   Note the best choice depends on the intended public so you have a
> better
>   idea than me about this...
> 
>  - 2.2 second 1. page 5: IMHO the interface is Fp, not Fr.
> 
>  - 3.1 figure 2 page 7: Estbalishment -> Establishment
> 
>  - 3.1.1 page 7: parametrization -> parameterization
> 
>  - 4.1 page 11 (twice): i.e. -> i.e.,
> 
>  - 4.1 2. page 11: the and in "+ and 2" should be moved to the end
>    of the previous item, i.e., I suggest to change:
> 
>            +  1 (HA Mode - Cold Standby) represents that the FE is in
> HA
>               mode cold Standby
> 
>            +  and 2 (HA Mode - Hot Standby) represents that the FE is
> in
>               HA mode hot Standby
> 
> into
> 
>            +  1 (HA Mode - Cold Standby) represents that the FE is in
> HA
>               mode cold Standby, and
> 
>            +  2 (HA Mode - Hot Standby) represents that the FE is in
>               HA mode hot Standby
> 
>     Note if you want to put something at the end of each items the
> correct
>     character is ";", and "." for the last item.
> 
>  - 4.2 page 13: practise -> practice
> 
>  - 4.2 pages 13 and 14: figure 4 should be on one page (this is
>   something to leave to the RFC Editor anyway).
> 
>  - 4.2 figure 5 page 14 (3!): Estbalishment -> Establishment
> 
>  - Appendix A page 20: some indent problems with "The FE should
>   stop | continue" (same remark: we can expect the RFC Editor will
>   use a XML pretty-printer for the final editing).
> 
> Regards
> 
> [e-mail]
> 
> PS: I am at the IETF meeting.