Subject: Re: [Gen-art] (full) review of draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-25.txt

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 10:46:28 +0700

[email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] writes:

... 
> Nits/editorial comments:
>  Technical:
> 
>   - 13 page 147: I have a concern about 'TLS or IPsec handshake' because
>    there is no such thing like 'IPsec handshake'. I suggest to ask IPsec
>    people to check if this must be changed and if yes to get a better
>    wording.

This seems _very_ nit-picky to me ;-).  While technically correct, IKE is
often colloquially referred to as the IPsec "handshake", e.g., by no less a
personage than Radia Perlman (see
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-tutorial-01).

> 
>  Large scope editial:
> 
>   - Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments
>    (ToC page 6, A. page 152 and in the text itself, for instance 1 page
> 7
>     in Failover)

According to the Oxford Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, both
"acknowledgement" and "acknowledgment" are valid spellings, the difference
being that the former is the British usage & the latter the American.  I
prefer the British usage because it's just way more classy.  Deal with it
:-).

...

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 15:15:45 +0100

In your previous mail you wrote:

   ... 

=> what about: IPsec -> IPsec/IKE? It is more correct so everybody
will be happy.

   >    (ToC page 6, A. page 152 and in the text itself, for instance 1 page
   
   According to the Oxford Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language,

=> IETF/RFC Editor adopted the American spelling without the 'e'

   both
   
=> in general we should use American speliing in RFCs (even this worries
Brittish and globally European persons who learnt UK-English as school :-).

Thanks

[email-masked]

PS: please use the RFC Editor service for fixing editorial details.