Thanks for including the Gen-Art feedback.
For some reason, I have not received either the gen-art nor the “discuss” so am
trying to resolve and respond through this
Email (for the gen-art) and will see on how to better respond to the “discuss”
in a bit.
To Alissa’s comment: I have made the general substitution of “transport” to
“transfer” where applicable (apologies as the inconsistency is an oversight).
For gen-art, please see below with my annotations marked as “[NCW]”:
On 6/21/17, 9:44 AM, "Alissa Cooper" <ali...@cooperw.in> wrote:
Francis, thank you for your review. I have indicated in my ballot that no
response has been received yet.
Alissa
> On Jun 11, 2017, at 5:13 AM, Francis Dupont <francis.dup...@fdupont.fr>
wrote:
>
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.
>
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
>
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-sacm-requirements-15.txt
> Reviewer: Francis Dupont
> Review Date: 20170607
> IETF LC End Date: 20170605
> IESG Telechat date: unknown
>
> Summary: Almost Ready
>
> Major issues: None
>
> Minor issues: ambiguous uses of lowercase keywords:
> RFC 2119 is very ambiguous about the required case of keywords so even
> of 1.1 includes a "uppercase keyword only" statement I strongly recommend
> to avoid use of lowercase keywords in numbered requirements (and to
> add a statement about this in 1.1). Note there are a few "required" and
> at least a "shall". In a few case this should avoid further questions
> about whether to promote a lower case verb (e.g., a may) to a keyword.
[NCW] There was another comment/question to the actual applicability of
2119. As this is a requirements document, the uppercase keywords are meant
to indicate what is an actual requirement (MUST) vs. recommendation (SHOULD);
as such, I will remove the 2119 and update the requirements language to better
reflect intent.
>
> Nits/editorial comments:
> - ToC page 2 and 3 page 15: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments
[NCW] Done.
>
> - 1 page 2: expand the SACM abbrev at the first use in the boday
[NCW] Done.
>
> - 2.1 page 5 G-002: first example of a lowercase keyword (a must)
> which is both ambiguous and a candidate to uppercase (note as
> there is no keywords in G-002 it is even a strong candidate).
[NCW] candidates for adoption have to ensure interoperability, so I’ve made
this a capital MUST.
>
> - 2.1 page 5 G-003: ambiguous "must" in "Scalability must be addressed..."
> (I propose to replace it by "has to")
[NCW] Fair enough, though the MUST is to reflect that is has to address
this…but the recommendation to include a section should suffice so will have
the “MUST” to “has to”
>
> I counted 30 ambiguous keywords in numbered requirements
> (I can give details if you need)
[NCW] Hopefully with new “intent” of use of capitalization should have helped,
if not, do please let me know.
>
> - 2.1 page 6 (G-006 & G-009 (twice)), 2.3 page 9 (IM-006), 2.6 page 14
> (T-004): i.e. -> i.e.,
>
> - 2.2 page 8 (ARCH-007), 2.4 pages 10 (DM-002) and 11 (DM-004, DM-010
> and DM-011), 2,5 page 13 (OP-007 (twice)), 2.6 page 14 (T-003 and T-005),
> 5.2 page 17: e.g. -> e.g.,
>
> - 2.6 page 14 (proposal): hyperText -> hypertext
> BTW HTTP is a well known abbrev so you can simply leave HTTP
> (cf http://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt)
[NCW] LoL….I was told to add it in a previous review, but will remove it (again
since I can reference the link above!)
>
> - 5 pages 15-17: lowercase keywords (so not to be interpreted as keywords)
> are fine here as there are not in numbered requirements.
>
> - 5.2 page 17: unecessary -> unnecessary
>
> - 7.1 page 18: draft-ietf-sacm-terminology is (intented to be)
> informational so to have it as a normative reference is questionable.
> Same for RFC 5209 and RFC 7632. Note according to the RFC 7322 the
> rule for normative vs informative references is flexible so you can
> argue these documents bring important or even critical information.
[NCW] Oops, will move them to informational. Though, I will leave 7632 as they
were used to exemplify and tease out the requirements.
>
> - Addresses page 10: (more for the RFC Editor) please try to move the
> title to the next page.
>
> Regards
>
> francis.dup...@fdupont.fr
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
