Thanks for your review! No, there is no LC planned for this document. In fact, we already dealt with it in the IESG, and uncovered one technical issue that needs to be addressed.
I would ask the chairs to look into these issues and list changes, if any, so that I can take them into account in the RFC Editor notes. For the most part I believe the RFC Editor can deal with the editorial stuff (and I can make them aware of these comments), so focus on the technical stuff. --Jari Francis Dupont kirjoitti: > > I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) > reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see > http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). > > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments > you may receive. > > > Document: draft-ietf-nemo-terminology-06.txt > Reviewer: Francis Dupont > Review Date: 2006/12/1 > IETF LC End Date: > IESG Telechat date: 2006/11/30 > > Summary: Ready with nits > > Comments: I have many comments about language/wording, some have > a technical impact but none is really critical: > - in 1 page 4, 3.2 page 10, 4 page 11 (twice), 5.1 page 13 (twice), > 5.2 page 13: e.g. or i.e. are not followed by a comma. > - in 2 page 5, page 6 (twice), 2.1 page 7, 2.2 page 7 (twice), 6.8 page > 18: the word subnetwork should be used in place of subnet in text > (I propose to keep the abbrev in figures but to use the full term in > text). > - in 2 page 6 (technical): from the Access Router -> from an Access > Router. > - in 2 page 6, 2.3 page 7 (always twice): IMHO "one or more" introduces > a plural (ask the RFC editor to fix this). > - in 2.8 page 8 (technical): the wording seems to exclude CNs which > are on the same mobile network (!= fixed or *another* mobile). > Is it the intention? > - in 3 page 9: some sort -> some kind? > - in 3* pages 9 and 10: LFN, VMN and LMN are a partition of MNN. IMHO > the wording should be a bit clearer, for instance with an "either" > .. "or" > construct? > - in 4.1 page 11 (technical): there is no reason that the topology is a > tree so the wording must be changed in order to explain how we can get > a hierarchy from any interconnection graph. For this point IMHO the > magic > words are "spanning tree" with the Internet as the root but things > can be more complex about the prefix delegation and/or with > multi-homing. > - in 4.4/4.7 pages 11/12: the opposite of "parent" is "child", not > "subservient". Is there a good reason to avoid child-NEMO/child-MR > terms? > - in 5.1 page 13, 5.3 page 14, 5.4 page 14: "either" is for exclusive or > and is used in situations where a standard inclusive or is better. > - in 7.4 page 19: the word "necessary" is far too strong and surely not > necessary... > - in authors' addresses page 25: please use the French (and only correct > in these cases) position for the postal code (aka zip code) which is > supposed to have only a local (here pour nous) meaning. > Not my comment: in 2.10 page 8: the abbrev CE (Correspondent Entity) > collides with already heavily used CE (Customer Equipment). CNR was > proposed (cf. IESG evaluation comment logs in the tracker). > > Regards > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > PS: as the document is informational I don't know if a LC is planned > for it. > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
