Re: Review and comment on draft-ietf-mboned-ieee802-mcast-problems

Charlie,

Three additional nits:

In the paragraph just before Section 4, second sentence.  "are observed"
-> "is observed".  The verb has to agree with "number", which is a
singular form.

Section 4.5.4, para 3, line 1. "methods makes" -> "methods make"  (Verb
agreement)

Section 5.1, bullet "Firewall unused space", line 2. "from IETF meeting"
-> "from one IETF meeting"

Otherwise, it looks good to go.

  Bill

On 2019-07-08 12:17 p.m., Charlie Perkins wrote:
> Hello again Bill,
> 
> Here's a diff file showing the changes.  If I got something wrong from
> your remarks, please don't hesitate to let me know.
> 
> Regards,
> Charlie P.
> 
> 
> On 7/8/2019 9:09 AM, Charlie Perkins wrote:
>> Hello Bill,
>>
>> Thanks much for the careful review!  I think I have made all of the
>> editorial corrections you suggested.  I checked for all occurrences of
>> "amount" and "which", and I followed your guidelines to revise as
>> needed.  I also tried to use appropriate language about the meetings
>> while still retaining mention of IETF as the meeting organization
>> where that made sense.
>>
>> I also followed your suggestion to include DRIAD as a third option. 
>> The working group had previously discussed including DRIAD and there
>> was support for doing that.  So, I don't think this will be very
>> controversial.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Charlie P.
>>
>>
>> On 6/12/2019 8:43 PM, William Atwood wrote:
>>> This is a very useful document and I support its adoption.
>>>
>>> I have the following nits:
>>>
>>> Section 1, para 1, line 9.  "wifi" -> "Wi-Fi"  (A check needs to be made
>>> to expunge all incorrect presentations of "Wi-Fi" from the entire
>>> document.)
>>>
>>> Section 3.1.2, para 1, line 3.  "which" -> "that"  (See end of review
>>> for the reason.)
>>>
>>> Section 3.2.4, para 4, line 4.  "amount" -> "number"  (If you can count
>>> it on the integers, use "number"; if you can measure it using real
>>> numbers, use "amount".)
>>>
>>> Section 4.5.3, para 1, line 2.  If "STA" is pronounced "es-tee-ay", then
>>> "a STA" needs to be written as "an STA".  (The form of the article is
>>> dependent on the initial _sound_, not the initial _letter_.)
>>>
>>> Section 4.5.4, para 1, line 3.  "a STA" -> "an STA"
>>>
>>> Para 2.  I suggest that this text be revised to include a third option:
>>> DRIAD (See draft-ietf-mboned-driad-amt-discovery.)  It would be a shame
>>> to do a Last Call on both DRIAD and this document at the same time and
>>> not coordinate them!!!)
>>>
>>> I further suggest that the order of presentation of the three options be
>>> the same as the order of preference for AMT relay lookup, as defined in
>>> the DRIAD document, i.e.:
>>> 1.    DNS-SD
>>> 2.    The well-known IP addresses from Section 7 of [RFC7450]
>>> 3.    DRIAD
>>>
>>> Section 4.6, para 4, bullet 4.  "which" -> "that"
>>>
>>> Section 5.1, topic "ARP sponges", para 1, line 14.  It is not clear who
>>> "We" is, in "We have to run".  This text needs to be re-written to get
>>> rid of the first-person presentation.
>>>
>>> Topic "Router mitigations", line 4.  "which" -> "that"  Also, "we" is
>>> undefined here, so the text needs to be re-written in the third person.
>>>
>>> Topic "Firewall unused space".  "from meeting to meeting"  (of what
>>> group??)  (It is clear to me that this point is talking about an IETF
>>> meeting, but the specific text here needs to be either expanded (to
>>> explain the context) or generalized.)
>>>
>>> Topic "NAT"  Again, this topic is specific to IETF meetings, without
>>> stating so.  The solution is applicable to much more than IETF
>>> meetings...
>>>
>>> Topic "Stateful firewalls"  As above, this text is IETF-meeting
>>> specific.
>>>
>>> Section 8, para 3, line 6.  "amount" -> "number"
>>>
>>>
>>> NOTE on use of "which" and "that".  "that" is used when the phrase
>>> following it is _required_ if we are going to be able to completely
>>> identify what is being talked about, while "which" is used to introduce
>>> supplementary information.  Some examples:
>>>
>>> 1) If there are three houses on the street, and only one of them is at
>>> the corner, then you say:
>>> "The house that is on the corner needs to be painted."
>>> 2) If there are three houses on the street, and only one of them is
>>> yellow, then you say:
>>> "The yellow house, which needs to be painted, is for sale."
>>>
>>> In the first case, the observer cannot identify the exact house until
>>> its position is given.  In the second case, the house is completely
>>> identified by its colour, and the information about the need to be
>>> painted is supplementary information.  This information is set off with
>>> commas, and introduced with "which".
>>>
>>>
>>> Bill Atwood
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2019-06-12 12:31 p.m., Warren Kumari wrote:
>>>> Dear MBONED,
>>>>
>>>> Pretty please, can you review and comment on the WGLC for
>>>> draft-ietf-mboned-ieee802-mcast-problems and
>>>> draft-ietf-mboned-driad-amt-discovery ?
>>>>
>>>> See the thread labeled: "[MBONED] WGLCs for
>>>> draft-ietf-mboned-ieee802-mcast-problems and
>>>> draft-ietf-mboned-driad-amt-discovery"
>>>>
>>>> The initial WGLC was extended until June 13th to get additional
>>>> feedback - "both docs have enjoyed tremendous support from folks in
>>>> the meetings/list in the past and there has been no particularly
>>>> controversies  noted in either doc."
>>>>
>>>> It will be very discouraging if we cannot get additional comments.
>>>>
>>>> W
>>>>

-- 
Dr. J.W. Atwood, Eng.             tel:   +1 (514) 848-2424 x3046
Distinguished Professor Emeritus  fax:   +1 (514) 848-2830
Department of Computer Science
   and Software Engineering
Concordia University EV 3.185     email:[email protected]
1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd. West    http://users.encs.concordia.ca/~bill
Montreal, Quebec Canada H3G 1M8

_______________________________________________
MBONED mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned