Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-gost-06

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 12:26:36 -0600

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.

Document: draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-gost-06
Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani
Review Date: Feb-19-2010
IESG Telechat date: 2010-03-04

Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard.

It has 0 major issues, 0 minor issues and 2 nits.

1) In the Abstract, the draft has references of the form
  "[DRAFT1, DRAFT2, DRAFT3]".  I would humbly suggest that
  these be removed from the Abstract and placed in the body
  of the document.  In their current form, these references
  appear, well ... temporary, given their names (DRAFT1, etc.)

  I have come across services that index IETF RFCs and also
  include the abstract in the index.  In that context, having an
  Abstract include references to seemingly impermanent
  placeholders appears disconcerting.  Note that references
  to RFC numbers themselves -- as the Abstract also shows -- is
  okay since RFC numbers denote some sort of permanence.

2) The references "DRAFT1" etc. seem to best fit in
  Section 1, paragraph 4.

Thanks,

- vijay
-- 
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60566 (USA)
Email: vkg@{alcatel-lucent.com,bell-labs.com,acm.org}
Web:   http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/