Re: [Mops] [E] Re: TreeDN Shepherd Review

["Lenart, Christopher" <[e-mail]>]

I am fine with Lenny's updates and comments, and I don't have any further
edits to make and will wait for the final editorial pass.

Thanks,

Chris


On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 4:28 PM Leonard Giuliano <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> Thanks for the thorough review, @Chris!  See comments/questions inline:
>
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2024, Kyle Rose wrote:
>
> |
> | Thanks for doing the shepherd writeup, Chris. MOPS appreciates your
> | service! I'm sure I'll see it when you submit it to the data tracker,
> | but ping me or the list anyway just in case I miss it, and I'll request
> | publication for the doc.
> |
> | Authors: please feel free to address nits now, prior to submission to
> | the IESG, or indicate that you will wait for a final editorial pass in
> | IETF LC.
>
> @Kyle- I'll update in the next day or so with these fixes.
>
> |
> | Thanks,
> | Kyle
> |
> | On Sat, Feb 10, 2024 at 6:29?PM Chris Lemmons <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> |       Oh, and... the document has the RFC 2119 boilerplate but doesn't
> |       actually use any of the keywords. This should also be dropped.
>
> Can we leave this in for now just in case some of these keywords gets
> added during the publication process?
>
> |
> |       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 might be worthwhile to update the out-of-date draft references,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.
>
> @Chris- can you point to where in the doc you see these, perhaps with line
> numbers?  I am not seeing them.
>
> |       >
> |       > The Introduction section is named "Problem Statement". This
> appears to
> |       > be an acceptable editorial decision per RFC 7322?4.8.1.
>
> Thanks.  Started out as Intro, but thought Problem Statement was more
> appropriate based on early reviews.
>
> |       >
> |       > 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
>
> Good catch, I'll update while I've got the hood up.
>
> |       >
> |       > The informational reference to RFC 6830 is, however, out of
> date. This
> |       > document was obsoleted by RFCs 9300 and 9301.
>
> Will update.
>
>