[Gen-art] Gen-art review of draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-06.txt
Hi, 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. Draft: draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-06.txt Reviewer: Gonzalo Camarillo gonzalo.camari...@ericsson.com Review Date: 27 January 2009 Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an Informational RFC. Comments: The Terminology Section is not usually appended to the Abstract. It is usually placed after the Introduction as a regular section. Thanks, Gonzalo ___ 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-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-06.txt
Sure. Whatever. Actually I am completely baffled by this comment as the terminology section in this I-D is Section 2. We are talking about the same I-D aren't we? draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-06.txt All I see after the Abstract is a section with RFC 2119 language. Maybe this should be toned differently for a requirements draft, but I find it useful and helpful to use 2119 language in requirements documents. As to the placement of 2119 boilerplate we should observe that the RFC Editor will always position this where he thinks it appropriate in an RFC and this has nothing to do with whether the document is ready for publication. Sometimes, it is true, this is immediately after the Introduction, and sometimes it is immediately after the Abstract. See http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5316.txt and http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc5440.txt for examples of each. Thanks, Adrian PS In case there should be any doubt, I really do appreciate the work done by the GenArt review team to improve the quality of our RFCs. - Original Message - From: Ross Callon rcal...@juniper.net To: Gonzalo Camarillo gonzalo.camari...@ericsson.com Cc: gen-art@ietf.org; ccamp-cha...@tools.ietf.org; draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-r...@tools.ietf.org Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 8:17 PM Subject: RE: Gen-art review of draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-06.txt I proposed to the authors to put in an RFC editor's note to cover your comment. If all are fine with this, then we should be ready to put this on an IESG telechat. Thanks, Ross -Original Message- From: Gonzalo Camarillo [mailto:gonzalo.camari...@ericsson.com] Sent: 27 January 2009 04:31 To: draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-r...@tools.ietf.org Cc: Ross Callon; gen-art@ietf.org; ccamp-cha...@tools.ietf.org Subject: Gen-art review of draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-06.txt Hi, 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. Draft: draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-06.txt Reviewer: Gonzalo Camarillo gonzalo.camari...@ericsson.com Review Date: 27 January 2009 Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an Informational RFC. Comments: The Terminology Section is not usually appended to the Abstract. It is usually placed after the Introduction as a regular section. Thanks, Gonzalo ___ 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-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-06.txt
It seems pretty clear that the comment actually refers to the Conventions used in this document section. Ross -Original Message- From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adr...@olddog.co.uk] Sent: 27 January 2009 17:55 To: Ross Callon; Gonzalo Camarillo Cc: gen-art@ietf.org; ccamp-cha...@tools.ietf.org; draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-r...@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: Gen-art review of draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-06.txt Sure. Whatever. Actually I am completely baffled by this comment as the terminology section in this I-D is Section 2. We are talking about the same I-D aren't we? draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-06.txt All I see after the Abstract is a section with RFC 2119 language. Maybe this should be toned differently for a requirements draft, but I find it useful and helpful to use 2119 language in requirements documents. As to the placement of 2119 boilerplate we should observe that the RFC Editor will always position this where he thinks it appropriate in an RFC and this has nothing to do with whether the document is ready for publication. Sometimes, it is true, this is immediately after the Introduction, and sometimes it is immediately after the Abstract. See http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5316.txt and http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc5440.txt for examples of each. Thanks, Adrian PS In case there should be any doubt, I really do appreciate the work done by the GenArt review team to improve the quality of our RFCs. - Original Message - From: Ross Callon rcal...@juniper.net To: Gonzalo Camarillo gonzalo.camari...@ericsson.com Cc: gen-art@ietf.org; ccamp-cha...@tools.ietf.org; draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-r...@tools.ietf.org Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 8:17 PM Subject: RE: Gen-art review of draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-06.txt I proposed to the authors to put in an RFC editor's note to cover your comment. If all are fine with this, then we should be ready to put this on an IESG telechat. Thanks, Ross -Original Message- From: Gonzalo Camarillo [mailto:gonzalo.camari...@ericsson.com] Sent: 27 January 2009 04:31 To: draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-r...@tools.ietf.org Cc: Ross Callon; gen-art@ietf.org; ccamp-cha...@tools.ietf.org Subject: Gen-art review of draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-06.txt Hi, 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. Draft: draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-06.txt Reviewer: Gonzalo Camarillo gonzalo.camari...@ericsson.com Review Date: 27 January 2009 Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an Informational RFC. Comments: The Terminology Section is not usually appended to the Abstract. It is usually placed after the Introduction as a regular section. Thanks, Gonzalo ___ 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-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-06.txt
Hi, All I see after the Abstract is a section with RFC 2119 language. yes, that is the section the comment referred to. ... the RFC Editor will always position this where he thinks it appropriate in an RFC and this has nothing to do with whether the document is ready for publication. that was why my review said ready for publication. The review later contains a minor comment in case the authors want to take it into account. I am fine either way when it comes to minor comments. PS In case there should be any doubt, I really do appreciate the work done by the GenArt review team to improve the quality of our RFCs. Thanks, Gonzalo ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
