Re: [Mops] TreeDN Shepherd Review

[Chris Lemmons <[e-mail]>]

Oh, and... the document has the RFC 2119 boilerplate but doesn't
actually use any of the keywords. This should also be dropped.

On Sat, Feb 10, 2024 at 4:13 PM Chris Lemmons <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> I have completed my shepherd writeup for the document, but during the
> process, I located a few very minor editorial problems with the
> document. Here's what I have for the remaining nits. The usage of
> non-ASCII punctuation marks and the obsolete reference should, in my
> opinion, be changed. If you're issuing a new draft to fix those, it
> might be worthwhile to update the out-of-date draft references, but I
> don't think that's critical and could be skipped, especially if the
> changes on the new drafts are time-consuming to review.
>
> The Problem Statement section title is an acceptable editorial choice
> and this document shepherd likes it :), but I'm flagging it in case it
> wasn't an intentional one and you would prefer to use the more
> commonly used Introduction.
>
> Here's my current nits section in my writeup:
>
> There are 13 lines with non-ASCII punctuation marks, like '‘', '’',
> '“', and '”'. These do not appear to comport with any of the usage
> guidelines for non-ASCII Unicode characters as described in RFC 7997.
>
> The Introduction section is named "Problem Statement". This appears to
> be an acceptable editorial decision per RFC 7322§4.8.1.
>
> A number of references are slightly stale, but none appear to be critical:
> - The year has incremented by one, because that is how time works. :)
> - draft-ietf-bess-bgp-multicast-05 has a -07
> - draft-ietf-ipsecme-g-ikev2-09 has a -10
> - draft-jholland-quic-multicast-03 has a -03
>
> The informational reference to RFC 6830 is, however, out of date. This
> document was obsoleted by RFCs 9300 and 9301.