Thanks much for your review, Christer. FWIW, I agree with the comment about the updates being documented clearly.
Jari On 01 Dec 2015, at 14:26, Christer Holmberg <[email protected]> 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-bess-mvpn-extranet-04.txt > Reviewer: Christer > Holmberg > Review Date: 1 December > 2015 > IETF LC End Date: 4 December 2015 > IETF Telechat Date: 17 December 2015 > Summary: The document is well written, and almost ready for > publication. However, I have some general editorial comments that I’d like > the authors to address. > Major Issues: None > Minor Issues: None > Editorial Issues: > > General: > > QG_1: > > Throughout the document, there are places where the text say “We follow”, “We > say”, etc. I suggest to talk about the “document” instead of “We”. > > I also wonder whether all the “We says are needed. > > > QG_2: > > The Abstract says that the document updates RFCs 6513, 6514, and 6625. > However, there is no dedicated section(s) which defines the updates. > > I also think the Introduction should contain some general overview text on > what is updated. > > If possible, it would also be good to have dedicated “Updates to RFC XXXX” > chapters, so that people can easily find what exactly has been updated. > > > QG_3: > > The Abstract and Introduction say “Previous RFCs”. I suggest to list the > relevant RFCs instead. > > Something like: > > “RFC 6513 and RFC6514 specify the procedures…” > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
