On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 5:53 PM Vijay Gurbani <vijay.gurb...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> All: This email serves as the second half of the review of
> draft-ietf-nsfv4-rfc5661sesqui-msns-03.
>
> I reviewed pages 297 to the end of the document, mostly for editorial and
> similar comments from a generalist point of view.
>
> The disposition remains the same as before ("Ready with Nits"). In
> addition to the nits I outlined in my previous email (reproduced below),
> here is one additional one:
>
> 1/ S18.51.1: What is the value of bracketing the code with <CODE BEGINS>
> ... <CODE ENDS> in this, and the next section? Clearly, you have code in
> the previous section, and later sections, without such bracketing.
> Uniformity dictates that the code in these two sections be given the same
> treatment as the code in previous sections. If, on the other hand, there
> is some significance to such bracketing, it may be good to comment on such
> a significance in S 18.51.1.
>
It's a mistake. Will delete.
>
> Thanks,
>
> - vijay
>
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 6:17 PM Vijay Gurbani via Datatracker <
> nore...@ietf.org> wrote:
>
>> Reviewer: Vijay Gurbani
>> Review result: Ready with Nits
>>
>> 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-nfsv4-rfc5661sesqui-msns-??
>> Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani
>> Review Date: 2019-12-17
>> IETF LC End Date: 2019-11-25
>> IESG Telechat date: 2019-12-19
>>
>> I have reviewed about 1/2 of the I-D, up to Section 12 (page 297). I will
>> review the remaining 1/2 before the telchat, but I suspect that given my
>> very
>> high level overview of the draft, my disposition will not change.
>>
>> Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard. In
>> the
>> portion of the draft I reviewed, there are some minor nits that can
>> easily be
>> fixed.
>>
>> Major issues: 0
>>
>> Minor issues: 0
>>
>> Nits/editorial comments: 4 ("Sn" means Section n):
>> 1/ Appendix A: s/No correesponding explanation/No corresponding
>> explanation/
>> 2/ S1: s/authoritative complete/authoritatively complete/
>> 3/ S1.7 (page 12): "associable" or "associated to"
>> 4/ There are many long lines that go beyond 80 characters, see S1.9, the
>> bullet
>> that starts with “o Open files can be …”, Table 1, S4.2.1, etc.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> - vijay
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
