In your previous mail you wrote: francis.dup...@fdupont.fr [mailto:francis.dup...@fdupont.fr] writes: ... > Nits/editorial comments: > Technical: > > - 13 page 147: I have a concern about 'TLS or IPsec handshake' because > there is no such thing like 'IPsec handshake'. I suggest to ask IPsec > people to check if this must be changed and if yes to get a better > wording. This seems _very_ nit-picky to me ;-). While technically correct, IKE is often colloquially referred to as the IPsec "handshake", e.g., by no less a personage than Radia Perlman (see http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-tutorial-01). => what about: IPsec -> IPsec/IKE? It is more correct so everybody will be happy.
> > Large scope editial: > > - Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments > (ToC page 6, A. page 152 and in the text itself, for instance 1 page > 7 > in Failover) According to the Oxford Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, => IETF/RFC Editor adopted the American spelling without the 'e' both "acknowledgement" and "acknowledgment" are valid spellings, the difference being that the former is the British usage & the latter the American. I prefer the British usage because it's just way more classy. Deal with it :-). => in general we should use American speliing in RFCs (even this worries Brittish and globally European persons who learnt UK-English as school :-). Thanks francis.dup...@fdupont.fr PS: please use the RFC Editor service for fixing editorial details. _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
