[Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-ecrit-additional-data-34.txt

Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr> Wed, 02 September 2015 10:22 UTC

Message-Id: <201509021019.t82AJwfk041328@givry.fdupont.fr>
From: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>
To: gen-art@ietf.org
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2015 12:19:57 +0200
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/th4t4CVMtR-7Glwlyp2Ktez4GZE>
Cc: draft-ietf-ecrit-additional-data.all@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-ecrit-additional-data-34.txt
Precedence: list

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-ecrit-additional-data-34.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20150828
IETF LC End Date: 20150824
IESG Telechat date: 20150903

Summary: Almost Ready

Major issues: None

Minor issues:
 This document uses and even redefines RFC 2119 keywords outside the
*formal* wording of RFC 2119: quoting the RFC 2119 (Abstract):
 "These words are often capitalized."
This formally means a keyword in lower case is still a keyword which
must (MUST :-) be interpreted as described in RFC 2119. IMHO this is
for very old IETF documents: any IETF document published less than 20
years ago uses full upper case keywords when they have to be interpreted
so this statement in the RFC 2119 Abstract is more source of confusion
than clarification.
 If it can be accepted I propose to add an exception for this document
saying that RFC 2119 keywords are capitalized.

Nits/editorial comments:
 - Abstract page 1: every emergency call carry -> carries

 - 1 page 4: every emergency call carry -> carries

 - 2 page 6: the place where I suggest to add that RFC 2119 keywords
  are capitalized and in general keywords are case sensitive.

 - 4.1.4 page 13: an example of a "may" and a "should" which are not
  RFC 2119 keywords but only common English.

 - 4.2.1 page 18: neccessarily -> necessarily

 - 4.3.8 page 27: defined . -> defined.

 - 5.2 page 36 and 5.3 page 38:
  I am afraid the provided-by construct in the example is unbalanced
  (i.e., <provided-by -> <provided-by>)

 - 8 page 62, 9 page 65 (twice): as security and privacy considerations
  can be read independently I suggest to replace the 3 "may"s by
  equivalent wordings ("can", "be allowed to", etc). 

 - 10.1.9 page 70: registation -> registration

 - 10.4 pages 72 - 76 (many):
  The IESG <ietf@ietf.org> -> The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>

 - 10.6 page 82: ectit@ietf.org -> ecrit@ietf.org

 - 11 page 83: benefitted -> benefited

Note I didn't check the schemas (even you had the nice attention to
provide them directly, cf appendix B). I reviewed the 33 version
(so at the exception of spelling errors I gave the 33.txt page numbers)
and verified the 33-34 diff.

Regards

Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr

[Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-ecrit-additional-d… Francis Dupont
Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-ecrit-addition… Jari Arkko
Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-ecrit-addition… Randall Gellens
Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-ecrit-addition… Randall Gellens