Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-murdock-nato-nid-02.txt

There will be a revised I-D. Barry On Tuesday, November 25, 2014, Jari Arkko wrote: > Thanks, Dan and Barry. > > Is there a new rev or RFC Editor -notes? > > On 20 Nov 2014, at 15:13, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > wrote: > > > Hi Barry, > > > > This looks reasonable, thanks for the timely response an

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-murdock-nato-nid-02.txt

Thanks, Dan and Barry. Is there a new rev or RFC Editor -notes? On 20 Nov 2014, at 15:13, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > Hi Barry, > > This looks reasonable, thanks for the timely response and for addressing my > comments. I suggest that the editor also fixes the text in section 7. > > Rega

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-murdock-nato-nid-02.txt

Hi Barry, This looks reasonable, thanks for the timely response and for addressing my comments. I suggest that the editor also fixes the text in section 7. Regards, Dan > -Original Message- > From: barryle...@gmail.com [mailto:barryle...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of > Barry Leiba > Sent:

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-murdock-nato-nid-02.txt

Thanks for the review, Dan. > 1. The document does not expand the acronym NATO at the first > occurrence. Moreover, in section 7 it mentions 'that a standards body, like > NATO' which is misleading - as NATO is not a standards body. I suggest to > use the full name in the title and abstract,

[Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-murdock-nato-nid-02.txt

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at . Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-murdock-nato-nid-02.txt R