Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-mpls-mp-ldp-reqs-07.txt

From: "Miguel A. Garcia" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 12:59:12 +0200

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at 
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>

Please resolve these comments along with any other comments you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-mpls-mp-ldp-reqs-07.txt
Reviewer: Miguel Garcia <[email-masked]>
Review Date: 2011-05-19
IETF LC End Date:  2011-05-26

Summary: The document is ready for publication as a Historical RFC.

Major issues: none

Minor issues: none

Nits:

- The document has a strange structure. In particular, Section 1 lists 
the contributing authors, which usually are included at the end of the 
document. I recommend you to take a look at the Instructions to Authors, 
in particular look at Section 4, which describes the Sections in an RFC 
and their order:

http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-editor/instructions2authors.txt

where the Contributors are listed in section 7a, i.e., right after the 
main body of the document, and prior to Acknowledgments, Security 
Considerations, and IANA Considerations. Notice that you document has the 
Acknowledgments and Security Considerations reversed as well.

- Section 2.2, small typo

s/A LSP/An LSP

s/A LSR/An LSR

Regards,

       Miguel G.
-- 
Miguel A. Garcia
+34-91-339-3608
Ericsson Spain

---

From: "Thomas Morin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 16:22:08 +0200

Hi Miguel,

Miguel A. Garcia:
> document. I recommend you to take a look at the Instructions to 
> Authors, in particular look at Section 4, which describes the Sections 
> in an RFC and their order:
>
> Considerations, and IANA Considerations. 

As I understand these are general, rather than strict, guidelines.
The choice was made to compensate from removing most of the authors from 
the frontpage on which they were on previous revisions of the document, 
and still keep them appearing close to the start of the document. Unless 
this is problematic, I'd prefer to keep it as is.

> Notice that you document has the Acknowledgments and Security 
> Considerations reversed as well.

Good catch.

> - Section 2.2, small typo

Good catch too.

Thanks you,

-Thomas

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 17:55:08 +0200

Miguel,

in general I agree with Thomas. The instruction to move
authors from the first page to section one came from me as a working
group chair. The rule is that we donät allow more than 5 names on the
first page this is enforced by the RFC Editor, and ultimate comes
from having space on first page for other necessary info).

What I think is the odd thing here is the first section is called
"Contributing authors" rather than "Introduction"; I had the impression
that "Introduction" was one of the normative sections, but it turns out
that I can't find this document anywhere.

My advice to Thomas would be:

Insert a section "1. Introduction". copy what is in the abstract.
Look carefully at that text in its role as "Introduction" to see
if you want to extend it.
Make the section listing the authors "1.1 Contributing authors"
We have precedence do it this way, this section only list the authors
by name and short variant of affiliation.

In the Authors section with list all authors with all the information.

/Loa

-- 

Loa Andersson                         email: [email-masked]
Sr Strategy and Standards Manager            [email-masked]
Ericsson Inc                          phone: +46 10 717 52 13
                                              +46 767 72 92 13

---

From: "Miguel A. Garcia" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 08:21:53 +0200

Hi Thomas,

Yes, these are comments for your consideration, not strict requirements. 
Please follow your intuition and your chairs' and AD's advice.

BR,

      Miguel

-- 
Miguel A. Garcia
+34-91-339-3608
Ericsson Spain