Francis thanks very much for your very close review. On the general point of style (such as british vs american spelling), i found rfc editor guidance (i forget in which document) that basically said 'you can do what you like provided you're consistent' - although as you say, expect will have to discuss a few things with them. i'll introduce the abbreviations better. thanks best wishes phil
________________________________ From: Francis Dupont [mailto:francis.dup...@fdupont.fr] Sent: Mon 23/02/2009 16:06 To: gen-art@ietf.org Cc: Eardley,PL,Philip,CXR9 R; lars.egg...@nokia.com Subject: review of draft-ietf-pcn-architecture-09.txt 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-pcn-architecture-09.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 2009-02-23 IETF LC End Date: 2009-02-24 IESG Telechat date: 2009-02-26 Summary: Ready Major issues: none Minor issues: - you received some LC comments (addressed) - I support any good proposal to make the document shorter - IMHO the Appendix should be moved at the end of the document. Nits/editorial comments: - global spelling (IMHO to look at with the RFC Editor): * behaviour -> behavior * centralised -> centralized * colouring -> coloring (colour -> color) * minimises -> minimizes (minimising -> minimizing) * optimises -> optimizes * recognise -> recognize * signalling -> signaling (signalled -> signaled * standardised -> standardized (standardises -> standardizes) * tunnelling -> tunneling (tunnelled -> tunneled) * utilisation -> utilization (both are correct but the second form seems to be the RFC style one, i.e., British vs US... note the next one has for sure to be fixed) - ToC page 3: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments - 1 page 4: I propose to use the 'quality of service' at the 3rd line to introduce the QoS abbrev - 1 page 4: The PCN abbrev should be introduced the first time it is used (general rule for all not-trivial abbrevs which are in the body of the text) - 1 page 5: DSCP and ECN abbrevs should be introduced and IMHO you should add some references too (RFC 2474 and 3168 for instance?) - 3 page 7: even I understand you don't like the "i.e.," and "e.g.," style it is the RFC style (i.e., (ie) you should discuss about this in the ietf mailing list, or at the RFC Editor presentation Sunday 22) - 3 page 8: fibre -> fiber (i.e., US spelling...) - 4 page 10 figure: add an extra '^' on the top of the other at the first line (the '^' glyph is usually pretty small so hard to see) (same 6.3 page 18 figure 2) - 4 page 11: please introduce RSVP and NSIS abbrevs and add some references (in particular for NSIS which is not (yet) well known) - 7.2 page 21: add the protocol in the filter spec - 7.6 page 24: RSVP Path -> RSVP PATH - 7.7 page 25: IPSec -> IPsec (i.e., if you cite RFC 4301 you should remember its 1.1 :-) - 7.7 page 25: please introduce the ECMP abbrev and add an internal reference to section 8 Challenges (ECMP is its first item) - 9.1.1 page 32: filterspec -> filter spec - 9.2 page 33: probability etc -> probability, etc - 13 page 37: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments - 15.1 page 38: I confirm the changes are good! - 16 page 44: IMHO the Appendix should be at the end (i.e., between the Author's Address and (to be added) Copyright notice) - 17.2 page 52 PCN08-1: add a '(work in progress)' - 17.2 page 54 Style: IMHO you'll have to remove it (:-). Regards francis.dup...@fdupont.fr PS: I understand why you prefer the British spelling... this is why I suggest you negociate this point with the RFC Editor. Note that at the exception of `Acknowledgments' this doesn't really matter and there are already examples of RFCs in both styles. _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
