Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-art review of draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-06.txt

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 11:31:03 +0200

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-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-06.txt
Reviewer: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Review Date: 27 January 2009

Summary:

This draft is ready for publication as an Informational RFC.

Comments:

The Terminology Section is not usually appended to the Abstract. It is 
usually placed after the Introduction as a regular section.

Thanks,

Gonzalo

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

---

From: Ross Callon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 15:17:06 -0500

I proposed to the authors to put in an RFC editor's note to cover your
comment. If all are fine with this, then we should be ready to put this
on an IESG telechat.

Thanks, Ross

-----Original Message-----
From: Gonzalo Camarillo [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 27 January 2009 04:31
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Ross Callon; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Gen-art review of draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-06.txt

Hi,

Summary:

Comments:

Thanks,

Gonzalo

---

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 22:19:25 +0200

I am fine with that.

Cheers,

Gonzalo

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 22:54:36 -0000

Sure. Whatever.

Actually I am completely baffled by this comment as the terminology section 
in this I-D is Section 2. We are talking about the same I-D aren't we? 
draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-06.txt

All I see after the Abstract is a section with RFC 2119 language. Maybe this 
should be toned differently for a requirements draft, but I find it useful 
and helpful to use 2119 language in requirements documents. As to the 
placement of 2119 boilerplate we should observe that the RFC Editor will 
always position this where he thinks it appropriate in an RFC and this has 
nothing to do with whether the document is ready for publication. Sometimes, 
it is true, this is immediately after the Introduction, and sometimes it is 
immediately after the Abstract. See 
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5316.txt and 
http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc5440.txt for examples of each.

Thanks,
Adrian

PS In case there should be any doubt, I really do appreciate the work done 
by the GenArt review team to improve the quality of our RFCs.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ross Callon" <[email-masked]>
To: "Gonzalo Camarillo" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; 
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 8:17 PM
Subject: RE: Gen-art review of draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-06.txt

Thanks, Ross

-----Original Message-----
From: Gonzalo Camarillo [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: 27 January 2009 04:31
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Ross Callon; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Gen-art review of draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-06.txt

Hi,

Summary:

Comments:

Thanks,

Gonzalo

---

From: Ross Callon <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 00:03:04 -0500

It seems pretty clear that the comment actually refers to the
"Conventions used in this document" section. 

Ross

-----Original Message-----
From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 27 January 2009 17:55
To: Ross Callon; Gonzalo Camarillo
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Subject: Re: Gen-art review of draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-06.txt

Sure. Whatever.

Actually I am completely baffled by this comment as the terminology
section 
in this I-D is Section 2. We are talking about the same I-D aren't we? 
draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-06.txt

All I see after the Abstract is a section with RFC 2119 language. Maybe
this 
should be toned differently for a requirements draft, but I find it
useful 
and helpful to use 2119 language in requirements documents. As to the 
placement of 2119 boilerplate we should observe that the RFC Editor will

always position this where he thinks it appropriate in an RFC and this
has 
nothing to do with whether the document is ready for publication.
Sometimes, 
it is true, this is immediately after the Introduction, and sometimes it
is 
immediately after the Abstract. See 
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5316.txt and 
http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc5440.txt for examples of each.

Thanks,
Adrian

PS In case there should be any doubt, I really do appreciate the work
done 
by the GenArt review team to improve the quality of our RFCs.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ross Callon" <[email-masked]>
To: "Gonzalo Camarillo" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; 

Thanks, Ross

-----Original Message-----
From: Gonzalo Camarillo [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: 27 January 2009 04:31
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Ross Callon; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Gen-art review of draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-06.txt

Hi,

Summary:

Comments:

Thanks,

Gonzalo

---

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 08:31:56 +0200

Hi,

> All I see after the Abstract is a section with RFC 2119 language.

yes, that is the section the comment referred to.

 > ... the RFC Editor
> will always position this where he thinks it appropriate in an RFC and 
> this has nothing to do with whether the document is ready for 
> publication. 

that was why my review said "ready for publication". The review later 
contains a minor comment in case the authors want to take it into 
account. I am fine either way when it comes to minor comments.

> done by the GenArt review team to improve the quality of our RFCs.

Thanks,

Gonzalo