Re: [spfbis] WGLC: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14

[Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]>]

On Wednesday, April 17, 2013 03:01:02 AM Commerco WebMaster wrote:
> Having reviewed the draft again end to end, I had pretty much the same
> minor "nit" as Mike (AKA Dotzero) has already expressed on the list
> regarding expanding the ADMD acronym in the Abstract section.
> 
> As the Abstract is the first place in the entire document where the ADMD
> acronym gets used, perhaps it should be expressed as ADministrative
> Management Domain (ADMD) to mirror what exists in Section 2.2.1.
> Originator of RFC5598, from whence the acronym comes, as later
> documented in the 4408bis-14 section 1. Introduction.
> 
> Also perhaps the ADMDs (ADministrative Management Domains, see
> [RFC5598]), as it currently exists, should be ADministrative Management
> Domains (ADMDs, see[RFC5598]), closely mirroring the plural as seen in
> Section 2.3. Administrative Actors of RFC5598 with attribution to same
> as already exists in section 1. Introduction of SPFbis-4408bis-14.

I made it plural.

> Overall, the work product contained in the SPFbis looks solid and all
> participants should be congratulated in helping to bring the SPFbis to
> this point.  I think that special thanks to Editor Scott Kitterman and
> the co-chairs for all their work in keeping the process on track and
> constructive are in order.
> 
> Finally, I also agree that the publication of this draft version
> (draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14) should move forward with suggested
> changes at the editor's and co-chair's discretion.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Alan M.

Thanks for the review,

Scott K