Fixing it with the RFC Editor works for me. Thank you. Joel On 12/20/2023 5:13 AM, Balázs Varga A wrote:
Hi Joel, Many thanks for the review. Regarding the editorial comment: - PREOF appears first in the abstract, so it is elaborated there. If You think it is necessary to do so in the introduction as well, we can fix it with the RFC editor. Thanks & Cheers Bala'zs -----Original Message----- From: Joel Halpern via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2023 3:39 PM To: gen-art@xxxxxxxx Cc: detnet@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof.all@xxxxxxxx; last-call@xxxxxxxx Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof-08 Reviewer: Joel Halpern Review result: Ready with Nits 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 <https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>. Document: draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-ip-preof-08 Reviewer: Joel Halpern Review Date: 2023-12-19 IETF LC End Date: 2023-12-22 IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat Summary: This document is ready for publication as an Informational RFC Major issues: N/A Minor issues: N/A Nits/editorial comments: The term PREOF is used without any expansion or definition in the introduction. Some elaboration of the term should be included at first usage. It may make sense to define F-label even though all the references to it in this document are saying that it is not used. As a reader, I was left inferring what was not being done.
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
