I dropped the ietf from the recipients for this email since this is too minor to bug everyone with the nit, but...
The first sentence of section 3 is currently: Addition of "non-PHP behavior" adds a variable of attacks on the label assigned by the Egress node. Do we really intend to say: Addition of "non-PHP behavior" adds a variety of attacks on the label assigned by the Egress node. Ross -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Zafar Ali (zali) Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 3:46 PM To: Ben Campbell; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; The IETF Subject: RE: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-08 Dear Ben- Many thanks to your detailed review. I have addressed all your comments in the enclosed version. Please see in-line for details. Thanks Regards ... Zafar > -----Original Message----- > From: Ben Campbell [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 5:27 PM > To: [email protected] > Cc: The IETF; [email protected] Review Team > Subject: Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob- > mapping-08 > > 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>. > > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments > you may receive. > > Document: draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping > Reviewer: Ben Campbell > Review Date: 2011-08-12 > IETF LC End Date: 2011-08-12 > > Summary: This document is almost ready for publication as a proposed > standard. There are a few editorial issues and nits that should be > considered prior to publication. > > > Major issues: > > None > > Minor issues: > > None > > Nits/editorial comments: > > -- Please proofread for missing articles (i.e. a, an, the) > Opps, I failed my English test again ;-) I did proofread the document and have tried to fix the articles to best of my ability. Certainly look forward to help from RFC editor, if I may please. BTW I always struggle which one of the following is (more) correct: "An RSVP-TE LSP" vs. "A RSVP-TE LSP" Document uses "an RSVP-TE LSP". > -- idnits reports some issues, please check. > I have cleaned up all idnits in the enclosed version, as follows: idnits 2.12.12 tmp/draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-09.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- No issues found here. Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- No issues found here. Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- No issues found here. Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) -- Possible downref: Normative reference to a draft: ref. 'ATTRIBUTE-BNF' Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). n.b. We have ignored one comment, as 'ATTRIBUTE-BNF' needs to be normative reference. > -- section 1: > > It would be helpful to include an explicit definition of " non- > Penultimate Hop Popping behavior" somewhere in the introduction. We have added it in the enclosed version (v9). > > -- section 1, paragraph 2: "P2MP" > > Please expand on first mention. I see you did in the abstract, but it > should be redone in the body. > We have added RSVP-TE point-to-multipoint (P2MP) in the introduction too. > -- section 2.2, last paragraph: "w.r.t." > > Please spell out > Spelled out. > -- section 3: First paragraph: " Addition of "non-PHP behavior" adds a > variable of attacks on the label assigned by the Egress node. " > > Is "variable" the correct word? > It seems to describe the sentence well. We are open to any suggestion. > -- IANA Considerations: > > Please include the explicit names of the registry to be changed. > Added Resource Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Parameters registry > -- 6.1, "[RFC 2119]" > > The space between RFC and 2119 confused idnits, and may confuse other > tools. > Adrian also pointed out this. It is fixed in the enclosed version. > -- 6.1, [RFC5920] > > This is an informational draft. Does the reference need to be normative? > Adrian also pointed out this. It is fixed in the enclosed version. > -- general: > > I am unable to read the title without thinking of this: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hop_on_Pop :-) LOL :) _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
