Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art review of draft-ietf-capwap-threat-analysis-04.txt

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 18:58:11 +0200

Scott,

The document was just approved by the IESG - actually the only one in
the CAPWAP package to have been approved by now. 

I suggest that you deal with the issue of expanding acronyms in the
title or not, with the RFC Editor. I do not hold any strong opinion. 

If expanded they should include the initials as well. 

> "Control And Provisioning for Wireless Access Points (CAPWAP) Threat 
> Analysis for IEEE 802.11 Deployments"?

IEEE is a well established acronym in the industry. CAPWAP is not (yet).

Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott G. Kelly [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 6:25 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Gonzalo Camarillo; 
> [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: Gen-art review of 
> draft-ietf-capwap-threat-analysis-04.txt
> 
> One comment on this:
> 
> Are we seriously planning to change the title from
> 
> "CAPWAP Threat Analysis for IEEE 802.11 Deployments"
> 
> to 
> 
> "Control And Provisioning for Wireless Access Points Threat 
> Analysis for IEEE 802.11 Deployments"?
> 
> or something like that? Is expanding the acronym for a 
> protocol that will be published before (or together with) 
> this document really that important? And if we have to do 
> this, why don't we have to expand IEEE?
> 
> Not trying to be difficult, but this seems like more trouble 
> than it's worth, and doesn't seem to enhance the readability 
> of the title. On the contrary...
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
> >Sent: Sep 25, 2008 5:49 AM
> >To: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>, 
> >[email-masked]
> >Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], 
> >[email-masked], [email-masked]
> >Subject: RE: Gen-art review of 
> draft-ietf-capwap-threat-analysis-04.txt
> >
> > 
> >Thanks, Gonzallo.
> >
> >The first three comments seem to be in place, and easy to 
> fix by Notes 
> >to the RFC Editor.
> >
> >The last issue will be solved by the formatting of the 
> document by the 
> >RFC Editor.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Dan
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Gonzalo Camarillo [mailto:[email-masked]]
> >> Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 3:35 PM
> >> To: [email-masked]
> >> Cc: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); [email-masked]; 
> >> [email-masked]
> >> Subject: Gen-art review of draft-ietf-capwap-threat-analysis-04.txt
> >> 
> >> 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 wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before 
> >> posting a new version of the draft.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Draft: draft-ietf-capwap-threat-analysis-04.txt
> >> Reviewer: Gonzalo Camarillo 
> <[email-masked]> Review 
> >> Date: 25 September 2008
> >> 
> >> Summary:
> >> 
> >> This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that 
> >> should be fixed before publication.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Comments:
> >> 
> >> The acronym CAPWAP should be expanded in the title of the draft.
> >> 
> >> The draft uses capitalized RFC 2119 language without 
> referencing RFC 
> >> 2119. Given that this is an informational document, it may 
> be OK to 
> >> do so, but this is something the AD should decide.
> >> 
> >> RFC 4017 is defined as an Informative Reference but is not used 
> >> anywhere in the text.
> >> 
> >> The ID Nits tool complains about a too long line (i.e., 
> longer than 
> >> 72 characters).
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Thanks,
> >> 
> >> Gonzalo
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> 
> 
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art