Hi Francis, I believe your comments are resolved in the -10 version of this draft. I expect a -11 version to be posted soon with a few other minor improvements. So, you might want to check the current -10 version or the -11 version when it is posted.
Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e...@gmail.com On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 11:29 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-trill-centralized-replication-10.txt > Reviewer: Francis Dupont > Review Date: 20171209 > IETF LC End Date: 20171212 > IESG Telechat date: unknown > > Summary: Ready with Issues > > Major issues: None > > Minor issues: C-nickname is used before being defined > > Nits/editorial comments: > - Abstract page 1: please expand the RPF abbrev > > - Abstract page 1 and 1 page 3: Mutlicast -> Multicast > > - ToC page 2 and 3 title page 5: > Centralized Replication Solution Overview -> Centralized replication > solution overview > (mainly for consistency) > > - ToC page 2 and 6 title page 8: a edge group -> an edge group > (It seems both are accepted?) > > - ToC page 2 and 9 title page 12: I have a little concern with the > CMT abbrev which BTW is not in the RFC Editor list > (https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt) > I suggest to add "(RFC 7783)" after CMT > > - ToC page 3 and 10 title page 13: > Network Upgrade Analysis -> Network upgrade analysis > (still consistency) > > - 1 page 3: at the first read it was not obvious that RBv is just the > notation for a virtual RBridge. I suggest to do the same than for RBn, > i.e., to change the first occurrence from RBv to (RBv). > > - 1 page 3: my US English spell checker does not accept learnt > (it wants learned ???) > > - 2 page 4: please move from RFC 2119 to its update RFC 8174 > > - 2 page 4: LAALP -Local -> LAALP - Local > > - 3 page 5 title: cf ToC comment > > - 3 page 5: " BUM packet should be..." an example of a lower case > "should" which can take benefit of RFC 8174 (vs RFC 2119). Note > there are two other "should"s next page and a "may" in 4 (and other > lower case keywords). > > - 3 page 6: C-nickname is used without explanation of what it is > (the explanation is in 9 page 12 so far later). Some words and/or > a forward reference should solve the issue. > > - 8 page 11 (last line): nodes/ multiple -> nodes / multiple > > - 9 page 12 title: cf ToC comment > > - 9 page 12: CMT -> Coordinated Multicast Trees (CMT) > (at the first occurrence, i.e., first line after figure 2) > > - 9 page 12: the definition of C-nickname is here. > BTW you use both C-flag and C-nickname flag, the second is not > very correct from a language point of view but is very clear > technically so I shan't object if you keep it. > > - 10 page 13 title: cf ToC comment > > - 11 page 13: psudo -> pseudo > > - Authors' Addresses page 17 (two occurrences): China -> PR China > (or you can switch all countries to ISO IS 3166 two letter codes) > > Regards > > francis.dup...@fdupont.fr >
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
