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

Hello Bill,

Thanks for your further review comments.  I reworded text to take care 
of your first two observations, and followed your suggestion for the third.

Regards,
Charlie P.

On 7/9/2019 8:00 PM, William Atwood wrote:
> 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
>>>>>

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