ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

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

2007-02-19 10:14:54
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(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>