Thanks, RIchard, for the quick response and for addressing my comments. Barry
On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 4:36 PM Y. Richard Yang <y...@cs.yale.edu> wrote: > > Dear Barry, > > Thanks for the review. Please see inline. > > On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 12:04 AM Barry Leiba via Datatracker > <nore...@ietf.org> wrote: >> >> Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for >> draft-ietf-alto-incr-update-sse-20: No Objection >> >> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this >> introductory paragraph, however.) >> >> >> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html >> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >> >> >> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-incr-update-sse/ >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> COMMENT: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Just some very minor things here: >> >> Please use the new BCP 14 boilerplate and add a normative reference to RFC >> 8174. >> > > I am using a standard .xml file, and when I compare the xml2rfc output with > the recent RFCs (e.g., RFC 8710, standard track), I do see the difference. > Thanks for catching it and we will fix. > >> >> — Section 2 — >> It’s a small thing, but in the first paragraph is it really useful to list >> the >> terms, only to have each one defined right below? My eye can instead run >> down >> the paragraphs and catch the list of terms that way. >> > > The list in the paragraph could serve as a "checksum", but it is indeed quite > close by and removing redundancy is a better principle than "checksum". We > will remove. > > >> >> — Section 8 — >> Just a note that I did not carefully review the examples. >> > > OK. > >> >> — Section 12 — >> Please add “Fragment identifier considerations” to the templates, as required >> by RFC 6838. It would also not be a bad idea to separate the two templates >> with whitespace or a text paragraph, for readability. >> > > Good suggestion. We will add Fragment identifier considerations” to the > templates; add RFC 6838 in the Section (RFC 6838 is already a normative > reference, but we will add a sentence to refer to it in Sec. 12). Yes we will > add whitespace for better readability. > > Thanks again! > > Richard > > _______________________________________________ alto mailing list alto@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
