Hi Mike,
as the review says, they are just nits. If you disagree with them, feel
free to ignore them (as long as your AD is also OK with that, of course).
Cheers,
Gonzalo
C. M. Heard wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
I will do so, and in that spirit I'm posting my response to the IETF
list with the subject line changed. My apologies for the delay in
replying.
Draft: draft-heard-rfc4181-update-00.txt
Reviewer: Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Review Date: 23 January 2006
IETF LC Date: 16 January 2006
Summary:
This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should
be fixed before publication.
Comments:
The title of the draft could be more explicit. Now it mentions RFC
4181. It could also indicate that it is an update to the Guidelines
for Authors and Reviewers of MIB Documents.
I disagree with this comment -- I believe that doing as it suggests
would make the title unnecessarily long. Note that the Abstract already
spells out the full title of RFC 4181.
Acronyms (e.g., MIB) should be expanded on their first use.
The only places where the acronym "MIB" is used are in the Abstract and
the References, where the title of RFC 4181 is quoted. The acronym is
not expanded in that title, and it would be inappropriate to do so in a
citation, which is supposed to quote the exact title of the document
being cited.
Also, I believe that "MIB" qualifies as an appreviation that is so
firmly extablished in IETF usage that its use is very unlikely to cause
uncertainty or ambiguity and so is exempt from the usual acronym
expansion requirement. Granted that it is not explicitly mentioned in
http://www.rfc-editor.org/policy.html#policy.abbrevs, but several recent
RFCs using the acronym "MIB" have appeared without it being expanded
anywhere. RFC 4181 and RFC 4663 are examples.
The only other acronym I see is IETF, and that one is explicitly
mentioned in http://www.rfc-editor.org/policy.html#policy.abbrevs.
The draft should be divided into pages, none of which should exceed 58
lines.
Unless I'm required to make another revision for other reasons, I'd like
to let the RFC Editor take care of that (which they will do anyway) ...
my apologies if the lack of pagination has caused any readability problems.
Mike
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf