Subject: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-capwap-dhc-ac-option-01.txt

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 10:26:53 +0200

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.

Document: draft-ietf-capwap-dhc-ac-option-01.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 2008-07-10
IETF LC End Date: 2008-07-14
IESG Telechat date: unknown

Summary: Ready with nits

Comments: I have two general questions and the usual editioral things
(here editorial means they can be handled by the RFC Editor):

 - the first general question is about references to DHCP:
  * the whole document, including the Abstract, assumes the reader
   already knows what is DHCP. I have no concern about this but perhaps
   I should? I propose to keep this point closed until someone else raises it
   (so it could enter into the any other LC comments)

  * 1.2 (Terminology) is only about CAPWAP, IMHO even you don't abuse of
   DHCP specific terms it is a good place to add DHCP references (the
   three at the beginning of the Security Considerations for instance).

 - the second question is about the use (or abuse) of 2119 keywords at
   unusual places, namely in the Introduction (i.e., before the 2119
   reference) and in the IANA Considerations. But it is only a question
   of usage/style...

 - in TOC and section 6: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments 

Regards

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

---

From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 18:13:09 -0700

Thanks for the review, Francis. Please see my comments below.

PatC 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 1:27 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); [email-masked]
Subject: review of draft-ietf-capwap-dhc-ac-option-01.txt

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).

Summary: Ready with nits

 - the first general question is about references to DHCP:
  * the whole document, including the Abstract, assumes the reader
   already knows what is DHCP. I have no concern about this but perhaps
   I should? I propose to keep this point closed until someone else
raises it
   (so it could enter into the any other LC comments)
<PRC> OK, if it comes up we will deal with it.

  * 1.2 (Terminology) is only about CAPWAP, IMHO even you don't abuse of
   DHCP specific terms it is a good place to add DHCP references (the
   three at the beginning of the Security Considerations for instance).
<PRC> I added a reference to RFC2131 in section 1.2 as it has a good
terminology (section 1.5)

 - the second question is about the use (or abuse) of 2119 keywords at
   unusual places, namely in the Introduction (i.e., before the 2119
   reference) and in the IANA Considerations. But it is only a question
   of usage/style...
<PRC> I fixed the reference in the Introductions section.

 - in TOC and section 6: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments 
<PRC> I think perhaps your version is the queen's english, while mine is
the one accepted in the US :(

Regards

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 09:31:08 -0400

> the one accepted in the US :(

It's the other way around, unfortunately.  The USA mostly loses the "e".

IMHO the usage doesn't matter as long as it's consistent, otherwise we 
could gleefully kill all those occurrences of "whilst".
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 11:49:41 +0200

In your previous mail you wrote:

=> there is no (not yet?) gen-art review FAQ but if the two spelling
exist the RFC Editor loudly insists to use the one without the 'e'...

Thanks

PS: you should have noted Ralph Droms' comment about v4/v6 option naming.
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

---

From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 09:18:21 -0700

Darn - and all this time as a Canadian I assumed we spelled it the same
way as Americans :)

I'll fix it up.

PatC 

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Brim [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2008 6:31 AM
To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-capwap-dhc-ac-option-01.txt

On 7/11/08 9:13 PM, Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) allegedly wrote:
>  - in TOC and section 6: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments <PRC> I 
> think perhaps your version is the queen's english, while mine is the 
> one accepted in the US :(

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 15:29:43 -0400

> Darn - and all this time as a Canadian I assumed we spelled it the same

A Canadian once told me that in school they told him he could spell any 
way he liked as long as he was consistent, and that's why he can't 
spell.  Then again he was from PEI.
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art