[Gen-art] Gen-art review of draft-allbery-afs-srv-records-04

[Elwyn Davies]

[Apologies for the late review.  I missed the allocation somehow.]

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 wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-allbery-afs-srv-records-04
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 19 February 2010
IESG Telechat date: 18 Feb 2010

Summary: Ready other than as noted by IESG (I noted the various discuss points 
and they aren't repeated here).  A couple of editorial issues are noted below.

Major issues: -
Minor issues: -
Nits/editorial comments:
Abstract/s1: Either AFS is an acronym that should be expanded or its 
relationship to the 'Andrew Filing System' should be explained.

s4: The PTS service name specified is afs3-prserver.  Since the server is know 
as a PTS server, it would have seemed easier to remember if it had been called 
'afs3-ptserver'.  It is doubtless too late to make this change.

s4: The term 'Rx' needs some brief explanation for non-AFS experts.

s5, para 6 (top of page 7): s/but be aware that configuration/but be aware that 
that configuration/

s6, next to last para: s/doex not exist/did not exist/




___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

[Gen-art] A *new* batch of IETF LC reviews - 18 Feb 2010

[Mary Barnes]

Hi all,

Here's the link to the new LC assignments for this week:
http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-100218-lc.html

The assignments are captured in the spreadsheets:
http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/gen-art.html
http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/gen-art-by-reviewer.html

The standard template is included below.

Thanks,
Mary.
---

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:
Reviewer:
Review Date:
IETF LC End Date:
IESG Telechat date: (if known)

Summary:

Major issues:

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments:
___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review for draft-ietf-ipsecme-esp-null-heuristics-05.txt

[Dan McDonald]

This last note sounds like Tero's addressed all of your concerns, modulo some
wording changes in here.

Am I correct?

Thanks,
Dan

___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

[Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-gost-06

[Vijay K. Gurbani]

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 wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-gost-06
Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani
Review Date: Feb-19-2010
IESG Telechat date: 2010-03-04

Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard.

It has 0 major issues, 0 minor issues and 2 nits.

1) In the Abstract, the draft has references of the form
 "[DRAFT1, DRAFT2, DRAFT3]".  I would humbly suggest that
 these be removed from the Abstract and placed in the body
 of the document.  In their current form, these references
 appear, well ... temporary, given their names (DRAFT1, etc.)

 I have come across services that index IETF RFCs and also
 include the abstract in the index.  In that context, having an
 Abstract include references to seemingly impermanent
 placeholders appears disconcerting.  Note that references
 to RFC numbers themselves -- as the Abstract also shows -- is
 okay since RFC numbers denote some sort of permanence.

2) The references "DRAFT1" etc. seem to best fit in
 Section 1, paragraph 4.

Thanks,

- vijay
--
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60566 (USA)
Email: v...@{alcatel-lucent.com,bell-labs.com,acm.org}
Web:   http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/
___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-mediactrl-mixer-control-package-10.txt

[Scott McGlashan]

Hi Suresh,


I'm one of the editors of this specification. I've applied your editorial 
comments but not your minor comment about the use of the term 'crop'. The name 
for these layouts is defined in the XCON data model specification which the 
mixer spec normatively references.  So while I can see your point about strict 
use of the term, I'm reluctant to change the name in the mixer specification.

Let us know if you disagree.

thanks again for your review.

Scott



On 11 Feb 2010, at 23:05, Suresh Krishnan wrote:

> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for
> draft-ietf-mediactrl-mixer-control-package-10.txt
>  
> For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at 
> .
>  
> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may 
> receive.
>  
> Summary: This draft is ready for publication as Proposed Standard but I have 
> a few editorial comments.
>  
> Minor
> =
>  
> * The term "crop" used in section 4.2.1.4.2.1. is counter-intuitive. Crop 
> usually means cutting away part
> of the picture to get the desired size and not stretching/shrinking it. Can 
> you change the name to
> dual-view-resize or something similar?
>  
> Editorial
> =
>  
> * Section 4.2 penultimate paragraph
>  
> s/operaton/operation/
>  
> * Section 4.2.1.4.1
>  
> s/partipicant/participant/g
>  
> * Section 4.6.6
>  
> s/formated/formatted/
>  
> Thanks
> Suresh
>  

___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art