Francis, thanks for your review. Gorry, thanks for your response. I entered a No Objection ballot.
Alissa > On Mar 12, 2020, at 1:20 PM, Gorry Fairhurst <go...@erg.abdn.ac.uk> wrote: > > 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 _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
