Subject: Re: [rrg] Fwd: Design Goals editorial feedback

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 09:05:41 -0700

Hi all,

For the record, here's how I'm resolving Ran's comments.  Note that draft submission is disabled at the moment.  I'll be submitting a new version as soon as possible after it is re-enabled.

>> From: Ran Atkinson <[email-masked]>
>> 
>> 1.2  Confusion
>> 	If "may" in the last sentence is referring to "permission",
>> 	then it is fine.  If the intended meaning refers to "possibility",
>> 	then please edit s/may/might/

Applied suggested edit.

>> 3.4  Readability and page layout would be improved
>>    if the sundry (1) through (4) were indented and
>>    each new number were the first non-whitespace on its line.

Applied, but not convinced.  Other opinions?

>> 3.6  Reference
>> 	Please cite IEN-1 at the end of the first sentence.
>> 	I believe that is the earliest document saying this.
>> 	If an earlier reference is available, then one might
>>    	substitute that for the IEN-1 reference.
>> 
>> 
>> 	[IEN-1]  C.J. Bennett, S.W. Edge, & A.J. Hinchley,
>>               "Issues in the Interconnection of Datagram
>>               Networks", Internet Experiment Note (IEN) 1,
>>               INDRA Note 637, PSPWN 76, University College
>>               London, 29 July 1977.
>> 		<http://www.postel.org/ien/pdf/ien001.pdf>

Unfortunately, this particular PDF file doesn't seem to render properly on my system (MacOSX 10.6.4, Preview.app).  I was able to render it using Adobe Reader.  Reference added.

>> 3.7 The tense of the verb is incorrect.  As this is a
>>   hypothetical case (the if clause), the tense should
>>   be the subjunctive:
>> 
>> 	s/if a tunneling mechanism is tunnelling was used/
>> 	 /if a tunneling mechanism is tunnelling were used/

Good point, fixed.

>> 3.7  Suggest eliminating one pronoun in the interest of
>>    clarity:
>> 
>> 	s/part of a solution, it/part of a solution, tunnelling/

Sure, fixed.

>> 3.7  Aside:
>> 	In English, the spelling would be "tunneling".
>> 	I can't claim to know the correct American spelling,
>> 	as I've always used English spelling.

Webster shows both spellings as acceptable, with one 'l' preferred.  Shifting to that.

>> 3.10  Aside:
>> 	Would it be OK if we said "capabilities" instead of
>> 	"functionality" ?

I actually think that there's an important distinction here: there are many capabilities of the routing system today that are not in active use, such as deaggregation.  I don't think that an architecture needs to support all capabilities, as it means that we must propagate our overhead as well.

Tony