RE: 3gpp-analysis-05: editorial issues

[<juha.wiljakka@nokia.com>]

Hi again!

-----Original Message-----
From: ext Pekka Savola [mailto:pekkas@netcore.fi]
Sent: 22 September, 2003 14:31

>  JW: Another alternative is to write this text in 2.4 with lower case (question: 
> Informational docs do not use capitalized keywords, but how is it in BCP docs?)
> If that text will stay here in capital letters, I can add terminology part.

BCP could have upper caps (as well as specific kinds of informational 
documents).  The problem here is that you're quoting directly what it says 
in the DNStrans document.  So, changing it in this document might not be 
appropriate.

So, I think there may be three ways around this issue:
 - define RFC2026 keywords,
 - just convert the uppercases to lowercases, or
 - in section 2.4, state it more clearly that the recommendations have 
been copied verbatim from DNStrans (which might imply that DNStrans is the 
authorative source here, not the uppercases in this document)

JW: Hmm, I might select the third alternative...


>  7. Changes from draft-ietf-v6ops-3gpp-analysis-04.txt
>  8. Intellectual Property Statement
>  9. Copyright
> 
> ==> these sections could be after the Editor's contact information section,
> but that isn't really set in stone.
> 
>  JW:  Looking at v6ops and other wg drafts, there seems not to be a
> common practice.. Until you can show me a clear rule, I will keep the order
> as it is now - and let RFC editor make the needed changes.  :-)

There is no strict rule of this, but ID-nits lists these in that order 
(and in most cases, that's what seems to make the most sense to me, 
because those are sections that will be either removed at publication or 
stay the same across all I-Ds):

http://www.ietf.org/ID-nits.html

 JW: Fine, I will use ID-nits as the reference and make the section order 
based on it.

BR,
	-Juha W.-