[Gen-art] review of draft-mcwalter-uri-mib-02.txt
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-mcwalter-uri-mib-02.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 2007-02-11 IETF LC End Date: 2007-03-08 IESG Telechat date: (if known) Summary: Almost Ready Comments: as already signaled this document has a real issue with its title. I recommend to take a model, for instance RFC 2851. Some minor details: - ToC and 6, pages 2 and 6: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments - 2 page 3: the way STD 58 is referenced is inelegant (but it seems the issue is more in the STD 58 covering multiple RFCs...) - 6 page 6: perhaps to add the "editor" mention is the thing to do? - 7 pages 6 and 8: to cite the last I-D and status of RFCs is not the usage. Regards [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
[Gen-art] Re: review of draft-mcwalter-uri-mib-02.txt
> - 2 page 3: the way STD 58 is referenced is inelegant (but it seems the > issue is more in the STD 58 covering multiple RFCs...) This is copied from the MIB boilerplate; see http://www.ops.ietf.org/mib-boilerplate.html The awkward references have come up a few times, but it's not appropriate to change them in a given document - you just copy the boilerplate into your document. Bill ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
[Gen-art] Re: Last Call: draft-heard-rfc4181-update (RFC 4181 Update to Recognize the IETF Trust) to BCP [WAS: Gen-art review of draft-heard-rfc4181-update-00.txt]
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. I will do so, and in that spirit I'm posting my response to the IETF list with the subject line changed. My apologies for the delay in replying. Draft: draft-heard-rfc4181-update-00.txt Reviewer: Gonzalo Camarillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Review Date: 23 January 2006 IETF LC Date: 16 January 2006 Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be fixed before publication. Comments: The title of the draft could be more explicit. Now it mentions RFC 4181. It could also indicate that it is an update to the Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of MIB Documents. I disagree with this comment -- I believe that doing as it suggests would make the title unnecessarily long. Note that the Abstract already spells out the full title of RFC 4181. Acronyms (e.g., MIB) should be expanded on their first use. The only places where the acronym "MIB" is used are in the Abstract and the References, where the title of RFC 4181 is quoted. The acronym is not expanded in that title, and it would be inappropriate to do so in a citation, which is supposed to quote the exact title of the document being cited. Also, I believe that "MIB" qualifies as an appreviation that is so firmly extablished in IETF usage that its use is very unlikely to cause uncertainty or ambiguity and so is exempt from the usual acronym expansion requirement. Granted that it is not explicitly mentioned in http://www.rfc-editor.org/policy.html#policy.abbrevs, but several recent RFCs using the acronym "MIB" have appeared without it being expanded anywhere. RFC 4181 and RFC 4663 are examples. The only other acronym I see is IETF, and that one is explicitly mentioned in http://www.rfc-editor.org/policy.html#policy.abbrevs. The draft should be divided into pages, none of which should exceed 58 lines. Unless I'm required to make another revision for other reasons, I'd like to let the RFC Editor take care of that (which they will do anyway) ... my apologies if the lack of pagination has caused any readability problems. Mike ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
[Gen-art] Re: Last Call: draft-heard-rfc4181-update (RFC 4181 Update to Recognize the IETF Trust) to BCP [WAS: Gen-art review of draft-heard-rfc4181-update-00.txt]
Hi Mike, as the review says, they are just nits. If you disagree with them, feel free to ignore them (as long as your AD is also OK with that, of course). Cheers, Gonzalo C. M. Heard wrote: On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. I will do so, and in that spirit I'm posting my response to the IETF list with the subject line changed. My apologies for the delay in replying. Draft: draft-heard-rfc4181-update-00.txt Reviewer: Gonzalo Camarillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Review Date: 23 January 2006 IETF LC Date: 16 January 2006 Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be fixed before publication. Comments: The title of the draft could be more explicit. Now it mentions RFC 4181. It could also indicate that it is an update to the Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of MIB Documents. I disagree with this comment -- I believe that doing as it suggests would make the title unnecessarily long. Note that the Abstract already spells out the full title of RFC 4181. Acronyms (e.g., MIB) should be expanded on their first use. The only places where the acronym "MIB" is used are in the Abstract and the References, where the title of RFC 4181 is quoted. The acronym is not expanded in that title, and it would be inappropriate to do so in a citation, which is supposed to quote the exact title of the document being cited. Also, I believe that "MIB" qualifies as an appreviation that is so firmly extablished in IETF usage that its use is very unlikely to cause uncertainty or ambiguity and so is exempt from the usual acronym expansion requirement. Granted that it is not explicitly mentioned in http://www.rfc-editor.org/policy.html#policy.abbrevs, but several recent RFCs using the acronym "MIB" have appeared without it being expanded anywhere. RFC 4181 and RFC 4663 are examples. The only other acronym I see is IETF, and that one is explicitly mentioned in http://www.rfc-editor.org/policy.html#policy.abbrevs. The draft should be divided into pages, none of which should exceed 58 lines. Unless I'm required to make another revision for other reasons, I'd like to let the RFC Editor take care of that (which they will do anyway) ... my apologies if the lack of pagination has caused any readability problems. Mike ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
