Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-imss-fc-fcs-mib-02.txt

[Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan at ericsson.com>]

Hi Keith,
  Please find comments inline.

Thanks
Suresh

> Without this sentence, the boilerplate implies that all of the listed
> keywords are present in the document.  Since the boilerplate cannot be
> changed, the sentence was included to avoid the erroneous implication.

I do not know of any draft/RFC which uses all of these keywords, but I 
am fine with leaving the sentence in.

> > Editorial:
> > ==========
> >
> > * No expiration date for draft on the first and last pages. According to
> >
> > http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt
> > ===========================================
> >
> >     A document expiration date should appear on the first and last page
> >     of the Internet-Draft.  The expiration date is 185 days following the
> >     submission of the document as an Internet-Draft.  Use of the phrase
> >     "expires in six months" or "expires in 185 days" is not acceptable.
>  
> The footer (on every page) contains the expiry date.

I was expecting a date and I found only the month in the footer.

> > * Intended Status of the document is not specified in the draft. (I 
> > found it is Proposed Standard using the ID Tracker)
>  
> The guidelines say:
>
>    The Internet-Draft should neither state nor imply that it has any
>    standards status; to do so conflicts with the role of the RFC Editor
>    and the IESG.  The title of the document should not imply a status.
>    Avoid the use of the terms Standard, Proposed, Draft, Experimental,
>    Historic, Required, Recommended, Elective, or Restricted in the title
>    of the Internet-Draft.  Indicating what status the document is aimed
>    for is OK, but should be done with the words "Intended status:
>    <status>".
>
> Since the I-D neither states nor implies that it has any standards status,
> I believe it complies.

The restrictions on normative references are different for standards 
track documents as compared to informational documents. That is why the 
"Intended Status:" in the draft makes it easier to check for possible 
downward references. It is fine to leave it out. That is why it is a nit 
:-).


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf