Thank you for addressing my comments. See in-line.
Regards, Dan On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 10:02 AM Jen Linkova <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Dan, > > Thanks a lot for reviewing the document! > > On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 4:00 AM Dan Romascanu via Datatracker > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Nits/editorial comments: > > > > 1. In Section 3 the Normative Language with capitalizations is used to > describe > > requirements from solutions. This seems quite unnecessary, and certainly > cannot > > be verified for conformance. > > Yes, Michael Scharf made the same comment. -05 will have the text > updated to remove the normative language. > > >2. I would suggest moving or copying the first > > sentence in Section 6 (that says that all normative text in the memo can > be > > found in this section) in the Introduction section. > > To be honest, I'm not sure how to fix that text into the Introduction. > The Intro section talks about the problem statement and does not refer > to the document structure. At the same time Section 4 already says > that all normative text could be found in section 6. > Do you think we need another paragraph in Introduction (or another > section, 1.3?) explaining the document structure? Or do I > misunderstand your suggestion? > > Yes, a paragraph in the Introduction explaining the structure of the document and especially the place(s) where normative text can be found would be useful. If you add these you may consider deleting other such references spread in the text. This being said, it's just an editorial and non-blocking comment. Thank you for a well-written document. Regards, Dan > -- > SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry >
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
