Hi, both replacing the sentence with Orit's proposal or removing the sentence altogether would work for me.
Thanks, Gonzalo On 12/09/2016 11:25 PM, Orit Levin wrote: > Gonzalo and Jari, > To clarify, my comment was about the sentence in the Abstract saying: > "The same LOCATOR_SET parameter can also be used to support > end-host-multihoming, but the procedures are out of scope for this document > and are specified elsewhere." > > My suggestion is to replace this with "The LOCATOR_SET parameter can also be > used to support end host multihoming. This functionality is specified in > RFC[Replace with the RFC number for draft-ietf-hip-multihoming]". > > If this is not an accepted language, then I suggest removing the sentence > quoted above from the Abstract altogether. There is no need for it. Reference > to draft-ietf-hip-multihoming already exists in the text and in the > "Informative references" section of the document. > > The reason behind my comment is that the current open ended sentence doesn't > provide useful information and might create confusion as I explained in my > original comments. I don't feel strongly about the exact way this comment > gets addressed, though. > > Thanks, > Orit. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jari Arkko [mailto:jari.ar...@piuha.net] > Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2016 11:38 PM > To: Gonzalo Camarillo <gonzalo.camari...@ericsson.com> > Cc: Orit Levin <or...@microsoft.com>; Tom Henderson <t...@tomh.org>; > draft-ietf-hip-rfc5206-bis....@ietf.org; General Area Review Team > <gen-art@ietf.org> > Subject: Re: Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-hip-rfc5206-bis-12 > > I think the wording as it is on -13 is fine. I.e., RFC number but no > reference. I wouldn't necessarily use RFC numbers even in general in > abstract, but "This RFC replaces RFC nnnn." I think is fine and appropriate. > > Jari > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
