Hi Ines, We added the following reference into the working version per your comment: http://www.jjsylvia.com/bigdatacourse/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/p14-verble-1.pdf Thank you, Kathleen On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 12:51 PM, Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Kathleen, > > Ok, thank you for the feedback. > > Best, > > Ines. > > 2018-01-04 20:13 GMT+02:00 Kathleen Moriarty > <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@xxxxxxxxx>: >> >> Hello Ines, >> >> Thanks again for your review. Edits have been made in our working >> version that we hope to post soon. >> >> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 9:27 PM, Kathleen Moriarty >> <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > Ines, >> > >> > Thank you very much for your review! We're working on the comments >> > received and the nits you found will be addressed and are much >> > appreciated. >> > >> > Best regards, >> > Kathleen >> > >> > On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Ines Robles >> > <mariainesrobles@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Reviewer: Ines Robles >> >> Review result: Ready >> >> >> >> RtgDir review: draft-mm-wg-effect-encrypt-13.txt >> >> >> >> Hello, >> >> >> >> I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this >> >> draft. The >> >> Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related >> >> drafts as >> >> they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on >> >> special >> >> request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the >> >> Routing ADs. >> >> For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see >> >> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir >> >> >> >> Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, >> >> it would >> >> be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last >> >> Call >> >> comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through >> >> discussion or by >> >> updating the draft. >> >> >> >> Document: Effect of Pervasive Encryption on Operators - >> >> draft-mm-wg-effect-encrypt-13 Reviewer: Ines Robles Review Date: >> >> 12-11-2017 >> >> Intended status: Informational >> >> >> >> Summary: >> >> This document discusses current security and network management >> >> practices to >> >> help guide protocol development in support of manageable, secure >> >> networks. >> >> >> >> The draft is ready, few typos found. >> >> >> >> Comments: >> >> >> >> I believe the draft is technically good. This document is well written >> >> and >> >> clear to understand. >> >> >> >> Major Issues: >> >> >> >> No major issues found. >> >> >> >> Minor Issues: >> >> >> >> Section 2: >> >> >> >> "... Following the Snowden revelations,..." => It would be nice to add >> >> some >> >> references here >> >> Yes, the problem we have had so far is finding ones that aren't >> articles that may not be stable. A quick search pulls up new ones >> like the following: >> http://fortune.com/2016/04/25/snowden-encryption-james-clapper/ >> >> We'll have to try again to find an academic publication. >> >> >> >> >> Section 2.2.5: >> >> "DRM..."=> I would expand it to Digital Rights Management (DRM) >> >> Added, thank you! >> >> >> >> >> Section 6: >> >> >> >> inlcudes=> includes >> >> Fixed, thanks. >> >> >> >> Section 6.1: >> >> "information For example" => period missing? >> >> Ack, thanks! >> >> >> >> Section 6.2: >> >> "soltuions" -> solutions >> Fixed. >> >> >> >> Section 7.1 title: >> >> "Encypted" => Encrypted >> Fixed. >> >> Thanks for your review! >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > >> > Best regards, >> > Kathleen >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Best regards, >> Kathleen > > -- Best regards, Kathleen