Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.
Summary: Has enough positions to pass.
Gen-ART Review by Eric Gray ...
Last paragraph before section 3.1 (mid page, Page 6), what would be
an example of "ill effects" mentioned in this paragraph? It seems
to me that this statement could probably be more specific.
Immediately prior to section 5.1, it may be helpful if the authors
were to add a statement similar to the following:
> The format of these fields is described in the subsections below.
While this becomes obvious as you read on, it is usually the case
that these formats would be provided in the same numbered section
as that in which the format is depicted.
I have no idea if I am correctly interpreting the first sentence in
section 8.2. It looks as if there was additional text which was
removed (perhaps another security related technology that is
susceptible to eventual breakdown?). It also contains what appears
to be a parenthetical explanation of why a breakdown in security
occurs (but this is not very clear, because the sentence seems to
end prematurely). And the opening phrase "As many ... eventually
become insecure," appears to lack a corresponding closing phrase
that describes the outcome, consequence or result of the opening
phrase. From the following sentence, it seems that the intent was
that the stated methods may not be sufficient. But that is not
obvious. I suggest breaking this sentence up, or re-writing it
Last sentence of the first paragraph in section 3.2 (near bottom
of Page 7):
> ... its set of IP Address(es).
should probably be one of:
> ... its IP Address(es).
> ... its (set of) IP Address(es).
> ... its set of IP Addresses.
The pluralization of Address is not parenthetical as is (meaning it
cannot be removed with no ill effect on the sentence) - hence it
should not be parenthesized.
Last bullet before section 4.2 (toward bottom of Page 9), I believe
the phrase is "degenerate case" as opposed to "degenerated case"...
In section 10, fifth line of the first paragraph, "thanks" should
be "thank" ("... like to thank the following ...").
There are two occurrences of "HPIHI record" in section 6. I believe that these
were intended to be "HIPHI record" (based on mailing list traffic and old IETF
presentations.) However, those presentations date from when separate HIPHI and
HIPRVS records were used. A single RR is now used in the specification, so I
guess the name needs to just go away. (Perhaps they wre missed in a global
search because of the typo?)