[Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-mile-iodef-xmlreg-01.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 wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. Document: draft-ietf-mile-iodef-xmlreg-01.txt Reviewer: Suresh Krishnan Review Date: 2012/06/07 IESG Telechat date: 2012/06/05 Summary: This document is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard but I have a comment. Minor = * Introduction: The first sentence is too complex and very difficult to parse. Please consider breaking it up. I have proposed some changed text, but feel free to ignore if it changes the meaning of what you wanted to convey. OLD: IODEF extensions via class extension through AdditionalData and RecordItem elements, as per section 5.2 of [RFC5070], generally register their namespaces and schemas with the IANA XML Namespace registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/ns.html and the IANA XML Schema registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/schema.html, respectively [RFC3688]. NEW: The classes of the IODEF data model can be extended by the use of AdditionalData and RecordItem elements, as per section 5.2 of [RFC5070]. IODEF extensions that use such extended classes register their namespaces and schemas with the IANA XML Namespace registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/ns.html and the IANA XML Schema registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/schema.html, respectively [RFC3688]. Thanks Suresh ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
[Gen-art] Fwd: Gen-ART Review:draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-gtsm-08.txt
Oops - forgot to cc gen-art. -- Forwarded message -- From: Mary Barnes Date: Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 5:34 PM Subject: Gen-ART Review:draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-gtsm-08.txt To: draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-gtsm@tools.ietf.org I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at < http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-gtsm-08.txt Reviewer: Mary Barnes Review Date: 4 June 2012 IETF LC End Date: 29 May 2012 IESG Telechat Date: 07 June 2012 Summary: Ready with minor nits Editorial nits: 1) Section 1: - 2nd para, last sentence: This sentence doesn't quite parse - it's not normative, so it should either be deleted or reworded. I suggest deleting as I think it's somewhat superfluous. - Next to last paragraph - last three sentences - a little verbose & somewhat redundant. I think it can be summarized something like the following: OLD: This document specifies a "built-in dynamic GTSM capability negotiation" for LDP to suggest the use of GTSM. GTSM will be used as specified in this document provided both peers on an LDP session can detect each others' support for GTSM procedures and agree to use it. That is, the desire to use GTSM (i.e., its negotiation mechanics) is enabled by default without any configuration. NEW: This document specifies a dynamic GTSM capability negotiation mechanism for LDP. This mechanism allows both peers on an LDP session to indicate the support and use of GTSM without requiring any configuration. 2) Section 2.2, 1st para, last sentence: "and RECOMMENDED" -> "and are RECOMMENDED" ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
[Gen-art] Fwd: Gen-ART Review:draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-gtsm-08.txt
And, the response didn't make it either, of course. -- Forwarded message -- From: Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) Date: Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 8:11 PM Subject: Re: Gen-ART Review:draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-gtsm-08.txt To: Mary Barnes Cc: "" < draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-gtsm@tools.ietf.org> Mary, Many thanks for the review! Much appreciated -- please see inline: On Jun 4, 2012, at 6:34 PM, Mary Barnes wrote: I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at < http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-gtsm-08.txt Reviewer: Mary Barnes Review Date: 4 June 2012 IETF LC End Date: 29 May 2012 IESG Telechat Date: 07 June 2012 Summary: Ready with minor nits Editorial nits: 1) Section 1: - 2nd para, last sentence: This sentence doesn't quite parse - it's not normative, so it should either be deleted or reworded. I suggest deleting as I think it's somewhat superfluous. Agreed E_PARSE. I recommend we do not delete because it introduces the concept that this is for Basic Discovery. However, suggest: Therefore, GTSM can fully benefit LDP protocol peering session established using Basic Discovery. to: Therefore, GTSM can protect an LDP protocol peering session established using Basic Discovery. Thank you. - Next to last paragraph - last three sentences - a little verbose & somewhat redundant. I think it can be summarized something like the following: OLD: This document specifies a "built-in dynamic GTSM capability negotiation" for LDP to suggest the use of GTSM. GTSM will be used as specified in this document provided both peers on an LDP session can detect each others' support for GTSM procedures and agree to use it. That is, the desire to use GTSM (i.e., its negotiation mechanics) is enabled by default without any configuration. NEW: This document specifies a dynamic GTSM capability negotiation mechanism for LDP. This mechanism allows both peers on an LDP session to indicate the support and use of GTSM without requiring any configuration. This one I prefer to leave as-is, although appears as redundant in the surface, it is agreed and crafted with some precision. 2) Section 2.2, 1st para, last sentence: "and RECOMMENDED" -> "and are RECOMMENDED" Done. Thanks again. Adrian, I have these editorials in the working copy committed. I can submit a new rev at your request. Thanks, -- Carlos. signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art