Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-art review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-diffserv-class-aggr-04.txt

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 09:45:59 +0300

Hi,

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Draft: draft-ietf-tsvwg-diffserv-class-aggr-04.txt
Reviewer: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Review Date: 8 October 2007

Summary:

This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should
be fixed before publication.

Comments:

This draft is Informational and does not seem to contain any normative
text. If this is actually the case, Section 1.1 with its reference to
RFC 2119 should be removed.

A set of acronyms are not expanded. They should be expanded on their
first use.

References [1] and [2] are never used in the text.

Abstracts should not contain references.

Thanks,

Gonzalo

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 09:46:25 +0200

Thanks.

Kwok, do you feel you can handle these?

Fred

---

From: "Kwok-Ho Chan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 08:06:44 -0400

Gonzalo:
Thank you very much for the review.
Sorry for the delay in replying, I am currently on the road out of the office.
I will make the modification to the draft as you indicated.
I may not be able to get the changes in until Friday Oct 12 or over 
the weekend.
But I will try to get them in earlier if possible.

Magnus, ADs/Chairs:
After I make the changes, should I submit a new version to "ietf-drafts" ??
Thank you very much for your guidance.
-- Kwok --

---

From: "Kwok-Ho Chan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 19:59:56 -0400

Yep.
I am traveling, hence the delayed response.
Typed the response but only got connection now.
I will get the changes in latest by this weekend.
-- Kwok --

At 03:46 AM 10/10/2007, Fred Baker wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Thanks.
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>iD8DBQFHDINSbjEdbHIsm0MRAnorAKDtCg3B2UfO8xodGXevTd5xCnEQ3wCeLgTl
>OfAGJ7c2VeUUx4tOdSVmR5E=
>=gS72
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 10:03:01 +0200

Kwok-Ho Chan skrev:
> I may not be able to get the changes in until Friday Oct 12 or over the
> weekend.

Please do

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

IETF Transport Area Director & TSVWG Chair
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM/M
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone +46 8 4048287
Torshamsgatan 23           | Fax   +46 8 7575550
S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [email-masked]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Kwok-Ho Chan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 10:53:58 -0400

Gonzalo, Magnus, all:

A new version (-05) of this draft is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tsvwg-diffserv-class-aggr-05.txt

The changes made are based on the comments indicated by Gonzalo in this
E-Mail thread.  Please see in-line below on the changes made.

Based on the comment by Magnus (Westerlund) dated 16 Oct 2007 
13:18:17.0424 (UTC),
which I agree with, no changes were made on comments of the E-Mail 
thread with Brian,
Ken, Pekka, and Marshall.

Thanks!
-- Kwok --

>RFC 2119 should be removed.

Changed the "should", "must" to "SHOULD", "MUST" where they are appropriate.
Five changes in section 3, and one change in section 4.1.3.
These "SHOULD" and "MUST" indicates what needs to be done for the 
configurations
to work well together, they are not used to specify any standards.

>A set of acronyms are not expanded. They should be expanded on their

Expanded the acronyms on their first use as suggested.

>References [1] and [2] are never used in the text.

Deleted references [1] and [2] as suggested.

>Abstracts should not contain references.

Removed references in the Abstract section as suggested.

---

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 15:01:33 +0300

Hi,

Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before
posting a new version of the draft.

Draft: draft-ietf-tsvwg-diffserv-class-aggr-05.txt
Reviewer: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Review Date: 26 October 2006

Summary:

This draft is ready for publication as a Informational RFC.

Comments:

Revision 05 of this draft addresses my previous Gen-ART comments on 
revision 04 (see below).

Cheers,

Gonzalo