Hi Nicolas, I believe this comment has already been mitigated. Peter was nice enough to review the draft quickly and noted HVAC, K-12 and Elevator as US centric terminology. Adrian discussed this and I believe resolved the comment.
I have received some other comments in other areas of the draft that I will be working on with the commenters shortly. If Francis has any other areas of concern, let me know and I will add them into the comment resolutions. Thanks for the help. Ciao, Jerry [email protected] 10/02/2009 12:13 PM To Francis Dupont <[email protected]> cc [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Subject RE review of draft-ietf-roll-building-routing-reqs-07.txt Hi Francis, Can you precise a little bit more why you think draft 07 is USA centric? Mainly because of section 8.2 and section 9.1.2? other sections? Regarding section 8.2, I don't fully understand your expectation... Do you expect a few words on LON / Echelon, ASHRAE... for instance? Have a nice week-end & Best regards, Nicolas Francis Dupont <[email protected]> Envoyé par : [email protected] 02/10/2009 10:45 A [email protected] cc [email protected], Nicolas Riou/FR/schnei...@europe, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Objet review of draft-ietf-roll-building-routing-reqs-07.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-ietf-roll-building-routing-reqs-07.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 2009-09-29 IETF LC End Date: 2009-09-24 IESG Telechat date: unknown Summary: Ready Major issues: None Minor issues: - IMHO the document is a bit USA centric (but it is not a problem if it is stated in the document, for instance with a reference from the (US) building automation community, cf 8.2 comment below) Nits/editorial comments: - the language of the document is not at the usual level (but at it should be considered as better it is not a concern) - 2 page 4, 5.1 and 5.1.1 page 12, 5.3 page 13, 5.4.1 and 5.4.2 page 14. 5.7.2 and 5.7.4 page 16, 5.7.7 page 17. 5.8.4 page 18, 9.2.1 page 20: e.g. -> e.g., - 3.1 page 5: use the occasion to introduce the FMS abbrev, i.e., add "(MS)" after "facility management system" - 4 page 10: the P in P2P (and MP2P / P2MP) is ambiguous: it can stand for point and the point-to-point term usually refers to link topology. I propose: P2P -> (peer-to-peer, P2P) (MP2P) -> (multi-peers-to-peer, MP2P) (P2MP) -> (peer-to-multi-peers, P2MP) - 4 page 10 and 5.4.3 page 14: acknowledgement -> acknowledgment (for uniformity with the section title where this spelling is enforced) (multiple occurrences) - 5.1 page 11: no network knowledge -> no communication network knowledge - 5.2.2 page 13: even it is also overloaded: point-to-point -> end-to-end - 5.4 page 14: i.e. -> i.e., - 5.4.3 page 14: 2000mah -> 2000mAh - 5.7.6 page 17: msec -> ms - 7 page 19: J. P. -> JP. - 8.2 page 19: I'd really like to get a reference from the building automation community: explaining networking to them or an introduction for us (networking community) or both. I expect there are at least some framework standards. - 9.1.2 page 19: 2.4Ghz -> 2.4GHz (BTW the ISM band text is very USA centric :-) - 9.3.1 page 20: missing final '.' - Authors' Addresses page 22: unfinished (???), add +1 for USA phone number, -- -> - (and BTW try to use the same separator) Regards [email protected] ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. ______________________________________________________________________
<<image/jpeg>>
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
