Thanks for your review! We will act on this and another detailed review
of NiTs, and expect to make a new revision in a few days.
Sorry for adding to your pain - being careful to work as an early pilot
for the new document format has probably left us continuing with more
NiTs than we should have, and we'll resolve these.
Gorry
On 12/03/2020 16:20, Francis Dupont wrote:
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more information, please see the FAQ at
<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Document: draft-ietf-tsvwg-datagram-plpmtud-15.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20200311
IETF LC End Date: 20200310
IESG Telechat date: unknown
Summary: Ready
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None
Nits/editorial comments:
- ToC page 3 and 7 page 35: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments
(note the word has inconsistent spelling (i.e. US and UK) in
the document, I put here the UK spelling, preferring the US one).
- 4.3 page 15, 5.3.1 page 27, 6.1.1 page 30, 6.3 page 34:
acknowledgement -> acknowledgment
- 4.6.2 pages 18 and 19: (e. g. -> (e.g.,
- 5.1.4 page 24 "Error": e.g. -> e.g.,
- 6.2.3 page 33: [RFC8261] . -> [RFC8261].
- 10.1 page 36: I suggest to move the I-D normative reference to the
end of the list, expecting it will get a greater RFC number...
I suggest to run a spell checker with the wanted English variant to track
words from the other one.
Note these comments are about very small editorial points so you can
(should?) consider to leave them to the RFC Editor.
Regards
francis.dup...@fdupont.fr
PS: I looked at the version 16: I have no new comment other the wording
about the anti-pattern could be improved.
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
