Hi Christer. Thank you for the review. It's a good point that the language used to describe the requirement is consistent with the priority level so becomes a bit redundant. The marking of HIGH/MED/LOW makes the priority of the requirement explicitly clear. It's easier to identify and browse the requirements without having to get into the description of the requirement. Other authors can chime in. But I feel that there's value to maintaining the marking instead of using the text to specify the priority level.
Kent From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:christer.holmb...@ericsson.com] Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 5:54 AM To: gen-art@ietf.org Cc: draft-ietf-cdni-requirements....@tools.ietf.org Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-cdni-requirements-12 I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq> Document: draft-ietf-cdni-requirements-12 Reviewer: Christer Holmberg Review Date: 18 November 2013 IETF LC End Date: 26 November 2013 IETF Telechat Date: 12 December 2013 Summary: The document is well written, with one minor issue that the authors might want to address. Major Issues: None Minor Issues: Q_GEN: The document defines priority of each requirement as either [HIGH], [MED] or [LOW], which is fine. But, in addition to that, depending on the priority, the requirement text uses either "shall", "should" or "may". Wouldn't it be more clean to use consistent terminology (e.g. "shall") in the actual requirement text, as the priority is anyway indicated separately? Editorial nits: None
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
