FW: Evaluation: draft-ietf-policy-qos-device-info-model - Information Model for Describing Network Device QoS Datapath Mechanisms

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

Oops, I thought I had IESG copied

Thanks,
Bert 

-----Original Message-----
From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) 
Sent: dinsdag 8 juli 2003 11:52
To: 'Russ Housley'; bwijnen@lucent.com
Subject: RE: Evaluation: draft-ietf-policy-qos-device-info-model -
Information Model for Describing Network Device QoS Datapath Mechanisms


Inline

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Russ Housley [mailto:housley@vigilsec.com]
> Sent: maandag 7 juli 2003 19:55
> To: IESG Scretary; bwijnen@lucent.com
> Subject: Re: Evaluation: draft-ietf-policy-qos-device-info-model -
> Information Model for Describing Network Device QoS Datapath 
> Mechanisms
> 
> 
> 
> >                       Yes  No-Objection  Discuss  Abstain
> >Russ Housley         [   ]     [ X ]     [   ]     [   ]
> 
>    Comments (all can be handled as RFC Editor notes):
> 
>    In the Abstract:
>      s/This documenthis document/This document/

This one was already in my RFC-Editor notes, on the web page:
  http://www.ietf.org/IESG/EVALUATIONS/draft-ietf-policy-qos-device-info-model.bal

>      s/Together, these two drafts/Together, these two documents/
> 
>    In the Introduction:
>      s/A separate draft could be written/A separate document 
> could be written/
>      s/Similarly, a draft could be written/Similarly, a 
> document could be 
> written/
>      s/Together, these four drafts/Together, these four documents/
>      s/Model Extensions draft [PCIME]./Model Extensions [PCIME]./
> 
mmm.... I had discussed the use of the word "draft" with the authors,
and I thought they had changed them all to "document" or "memo".
I see there are many more places where they use "draft"

So maybe a generic RFC-Editor note: "s/draft/document/g
would be better. Or maybe the authors can do another rev.
Let us see if we get more nits/things raised before we decide 
on how to pass this on.

>    In section 7:
>      s/Like [PCIM} and {PCiME}/Like [PCIM] and [PCIME]/
> 
Yep.

I have created a new set if RFC-Editor notes as folows:

RFC-Editor notes:

- 2nd para of abstract
  OLD:
   This documenthis document 
  NEW:
   This document

- Page 2, 7th sentence
  OLD:
      Together, these two drafts
  NEW: 
      Together, these two documents
  
- Page 5, 1st para
  OLD:
      Together, these two drafts
  NEW: 
      Together, these two documents
  
- Page 5, 2nd para
  OLD:
      A separate draft could be written
  NEW:
      A separate document could be written

- The word "draft occurs at several more places. It is best
  to change those all to "document".

- Section 7
  OLD:
    Like [PCIM} and {PCiME},
  NEW:
    Like [PCIM] and [PCiME],

- Co-Author Walter Weiss is now at: walterweiss@attbi.com