[Tsvwg] RE: WG Last Call: three draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-*01 documents (fwd)

Thanks for review.. (the document in question is the Transport Area 
document).

I'm responding to the both emails here.

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 john.loughney@nokia.com wrote:
> This is a good document, I am glad to see this kind of document
> being worked on.  I understand that this must have been a huge
> undertaking, but I have some very quick requests.  

Ok..

> Could you improve
> the ToC, for example, listing the RFCs as subsections?  

ToC could get quite long, compare to ...-ipv4survey-apps-01.  It may not 
necessarily make it clearer (IMHO).  It also may be more difficult to 
generate a "full ToC", depends on the tools used.

Personally I don't have a strong opinion either way.

> Also,
> the formatting of the document is confusing - I believe that
> all paragraph text should be indented - which it is not; 

Agreed, I don't know how difficult this would be given the methods used to 
edit the documents.

> however
> text copied from existing RFCs should probably be doubly indented
> (it is currently indented a single time, for example in 3.3.1)

I agree but this could cause problems, if the double-intending would push 
the length beyond 72 characters, there could be problems..

> I hope this is not overly nit-picky, but my first attempt at 
> reading this document was not successful as the current formatting
> got in the way of understanding what is being discussed.

Yep.

> Section 4 doesn't contain any Draft Standards ... I assume this is an
> oversite.

Maybe Andreas forgot to add the sentence saying that there are no Draft 
Standards here (or if there actually are, those are missing somewhere).

> In section 5, it might be better not to list the specs that have no IPv4
> dependencies, or better yet, move them all to an appendix and list them
> in tabular format.

We're trying to list these documents under section 7.  Hopefully this is 
clear enough, as we'd hope to avoid restructuring Phil's legacy too 
much..?

> References are a little sparse, too - you may want to consider putting
> all RFCs listed into the References as well.

I disagree, but not strongly; IMHO, it should be apparent that the 
specific RFC's are all "unofficial" RFC's .. the list in the end would 
just get very, very long for not significant benefit (one that I could see 
anyway).

Thoughts?

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ext Pekka Savola [mailto:pekkas@netcore.fi]
> > Sent: 22 August, 2003 11:09
> > To: tsvwg@ietf.org
> > Cc: bob@thefinks.com; Soininen Jonne (NET/Helsinki);
> > andreas.bergstrom@hiof.no
> > Subject: WG Last Call: three draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-*01 documents
> > (fwd)
> > 
> > 
> > FYI;
> > 
> > Your oxen are being gutted and you're invited to the bloodfest.
> > 
> > In other words..
> > 
> > Feedback & Review is sought.  Please take a look at the 
> > transport IPv4 
> > survey document:
> >                                                               
> >                                      
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4surve
> > y-trans-01.txt
> > 
> > It's not too long; please send feedback.  In particular, it 
> > would be good
> > to identify specifications which have incorrect information, or
> > specifications which are not longer relevant and could be moved to
> > historic (if someone bothered to do that, but that's a 
> > different topic),
> > or the like.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> >  Pekka, Jonne & Bob
> >  v6ops co-chairs
> > 
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 10:38:49 +0300 (EEST)
> > From: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
> > To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> > Cc: bob@thefinks.com, jonne.soininen@nokia.com, 
> > cesar.olvera@consulintel.es,
> >      andreas.bergstrom@hiof.no
> > Subject: WG Last Call: three draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-*01 documents
> > 
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > This is a WG Last Call for comments on sending the following the next
> > three "Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Standards"
> > documents to the IESG for consideration as Informational RFCs:
> > 
> > Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Routing 
> > Area Standards
> >   
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-routing-01.txt
> 
> Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Security Area Standards
>   http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-sec-01.txt
> 
> Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Transport Area 
> Standards
>   
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-trans-01.txt
> 
> Please review these documents carefully, and send your feedback to the
> list (editorial modifications may also be sent to the editors, Cesar for
> the first, Andreas for the other two).  Please also indicate whether or
> not you believe that this document is ready to go to the IESG.  Silence
> does NOT indicate consent.  Unless sufficient support is demonstrated on
> the list, the documents will not be send to the IESG.
> 
> The last call will end in 3 weeks, on 12th September.
> 
> Pekka, Jonne & Bob
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

_______________________________________________
tsvwg mailing list
tsvwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg