Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-pim-rpf-vector-07

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-pim-rpf-vector-07
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2009-01-13
IETF LC End Date: 2009-01-19
IESG Telechat date: (if known)

Summary: This draft is very close to ready for publication as a  
proposed standard. There is a minor issue that should be addressed  
prior to publication, and a couple of editorial nits.

Note 1: The Gen-ART assignment was for version 06, but version 07 has  
been published. This review is for 07.

Note 2: I previously reviewed 06 for publication as an informational  
RFC. This review is incremental to that one. I consider any comment  
from that review not mentioned here to be resolved.

Major issues: None

Minor issues:

The following issue from my previous review has not been addressed.  
Email with an author indicated that they intended to fix this, but it  
doesn't appear to have made it into the draft.

> -- IDNITS reports that there is no RFC 2119 reference or  
> boilerplate, but there is at least one use of normative language  
> (2.3.4).

Furthermore, Section 2 is liberally sprinkled with occurrences of  
lower-case "must", "should" and "may" that should be examined to  
determine if they warrant normative language. I did not consider this  
an issue for an informational RFC, but do consider it to so for a  
proposed standard.

Nits/editorial comments:

-- IANA Considerations, last sentence (new comment)

s/propose/proposed

The following editorial comments from my previous review has not been  
addressed. Email with an author indicated that they intended to fix  
most of these, but the fixes don't appear to have made it into the  
draft.

> -- There are a number of acronyms that should be expanded on first  
> use. I would not worry about expanding acronyms that are well known  
> to the entire IETF community (e.g. TCP), but acronyms that are not  
> widely known outside the BGP community probably should be.
>
> -- Section 2, first sentence:
>
> Who is the "we" in this context? A edge router? (This is not a  
> complaint about 2nd person language in general so much as a concern  
> about the actor being obscured.)  The pattern of saying "we" or  
> "our" referring to a network element taking some particular action  
> occurs a few more times in the document. It would be better to  
> simply name the element.
>
> -- Section 2.3.4, first paragraph:
>
> s/depending/dependent

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf