Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-impl-survey-results-02.txt

From: "Malis, Andrew G (Andy)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 15:15:35 -0400

Brian,

Thanks for your review, and sorry for the delay. I'll be updating the
draft to reflect your comments below.

Cheers,
Andy

On 9/8/2013 21:31 , "Brian E Carpenter" <[email-masked]>
wrote:

I am the assigned 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 Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-impl-survey-results-02.txt (Informational)
Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review Date: 2013-09-09
IETF LC End Date: 2013-09-23
IESG Telechat date:

Summary:  Almost ready
--------

Minor Issues:
-------------

I found the Abstract too complicated and detailed, and the first paragraph
of
the Introduction too simple and general. Personally, I'd be inclined to
swap them, with minor adjustments.

>  Note that the intention of this document is to not draw conclusions
>  based upon these results, but rather to simply report the results to
>  the PWE3 working group for its use when developing other drafts.

OK, but wouldn't it be reasonable to include a short "summary of results"
section? You leave the reader to swallow a whole lot of detailed answers
rather than providing an overview.

>  The responding companies are listed below
>  in Section 2.1.
...
> No provisions were made for anonymity.

Were they told in advance that their names would be published? I think
this needs to
be made clear. (Compare RFC6036, where we had a number of respondents that
we validated,
but who requested to remain anonymous in the published results.)

I think the second paragraph of Security Considerations would fit better
in section 1.1. "PW/VCCV Survey Overview" where you describe the
methodology.

Editorial:
----------

The last sentence of the Abstract is ungrammatical and also conveys no new
information.
It could be deleted.

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 23:31:08 +0300

Thank you for the review, Brian! And thank you Andy for the changes. I think the draft can move forward, do you Brian have further comments?

Jari

On Sep 9, 2013, at 4:31 AM, Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I found the Abstract too complicated and detailed, and the first paragraph of
> Were they told in advance that their names would be published? I think this needs to
> be made clear. (Compare RFC6036, where we had a number of respondents that we validated,
> in section 1.1. "PW/VCCV Survey Overview" where you describe the methodology.
> 
> Editorial:
> ----------
> 
> The last sentence of the Abstract is ungrammatical and also conveys no new information.
> It could be deleted.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art