I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft.
For more information, please see the FAQ at
<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Document: draft-ietf-nmop-terminology-07
Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat
Review Date: 2024-11-11
IETF LC End Date: TBD
IESG Telechat date: TBD
Summary:
This draft is on the right track but has open issues, described in the
review.
ISSUES: 2
NITS: 2
1) ISSUE: choice of term names
Most of the terms defined in this document are very common words in
colloquial speech and writing. The defined terms are specializations of
their common meaning. In a standards document I fear it will be
difficult to discern whether a particular usage of one of these words is
to be understood based on its common meaning or the specific meaning
defined here.
I suggest that you establish a way to resolve this ambiguity. I can
suggest several alternatives:
- rename these terms to something that is not a common English word;
- specify some typographical convention to distinguish these words.
E.g., special punctuation - 'State'
- replace each word with a phrase that is recognizably unique. E.g.,
NMOP-State, or NMOP State.
Apparently you intend to use capitalization as a typographical
convention. That *might* be sufficient since in common usage these words
would only be capitalized when at the beginning of a sentence, but it is
subtle and might still cause some confusion. If this is your intent it
would be helpful to explicitly discuss it.
2) ISSUE: Unclear Figure notation
In Section 3, the notations used in the figures are not defined and not
entirely obvious. For instance, in Fig 1, what do the arrows mean? I
*guess* they mean "contains" or "composed of". Fig 2 is even less
obvious. The text describes what the diagrams are supposed to show, but
I don't see it. Perhaps it would help to place a descriptive label on
each arrow, describing the relationship.
The text that references Fig 3 is itself reasonably clear. The key terms
in the text show up in the diagram. The arrows do suggest a progression
similar to what is described in the text. But I can't ascribe a
particular meaning to the arrows. They all look the same but seem to
denote different relationships. Is it intended to simply be composition?
Based on the text accompanying Fig 4, I guess some composition is
intended though not shown. E.g., multiple facts or states determining a
problem.
I find figures 5 & 6 clearer. The arrows are still ambiguous, but the
relationships are more apparent from context.
3) NIT:
In section 1: s/focus on those events have a negative effect/focus on
those events that have a negative effect/
4) NIT: Missing term
In section 2.2 the term "control system" is used in the definition of
several other terms in this section, but is not itself defined. It seems
to be as much of a first class term as the others. So I suggest adding
it as a term.
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list -- gen-art@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to gen-art-le...@ietf.org
