Re: IESG evaluation draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-scenarios-05

[Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>]

On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 09:23:32AM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
> 
> 1)
> [rhousley] [IN IESG DISCUSSION]
>   Should VoIP be discussed in this document?  There are usually QoS
>   issues associated with VoIP that deserve consideration.

I don't think we need to add text about specific applications, as any
application the site runs fits under either "Enterprise Application 
Requirements" or "Enterprise IT Department Requirements" in Section 3.2,
the latter including QoS.

> 2)
> [hta] [IN IESG DISCUSSION] Reviewed by Brian Carpenter, Gen-ART
> Nit: Example Network B uses the word "external" twice with different 
> meanings; that's confusing...

I suggest chnaging the first use of "an external" to "a remote" or
"a separately hosted".   I agree the different use of "external" on the
adjacent lines is a little confusing, in hindsight.
 
> 3)
> [mrw] [IN IESG DISCUSSION] My affiliation is wrong in this document:  
> s/ThinkMagic/ThingMagic.  Could be fixed in AUTH48 if at all.

That's an easy one :)
 
> 3) is trivially fixed later on, so there's no need to worry about it
> now.  The question is whether it would make sense to consider which
> changes would be needed to fix 1) or 2) (or whether we just go on as
> is).  If the fixes are simple, these could be done as an RFC-editor
> note as well, without respinning the document.

I think these should just be made and the document pushed to RFC Editor,
as the changes are trivial and only typos rather than semantics.

Tim