Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601-update-survey-report-02
review-ietf-pim-rfc4601-update-survey-report-02-genart-lc-holmberg-2013-09-11-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601-update-survey-report
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 03)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2013-09-03
Requested 2013-08-22
Authors Lianshu Zheng, Zhaohui Zhang, Rishabh Parekh
Draft last updated 2013-09-11
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -02 by Christer Holmberg (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -02 by Leif Johansson (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Christer Holmberg 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-pim-rfc4601-update-survey-report-02-genart-lc-holmberg-2013-09-11
Reviewed rev. 02 (document currently at 03)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2013-09-11

Review
review-ietf-pim-rfc4601-update-survey-report-02-genart-lc-holmberg-2013-09-11






I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <


http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.




 




Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.




 




Document:                         draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601-update-survey-report-02.txt




Reviewer:                           Christer Holmberg




Review Date:                     11 September 2013




IETF LC End Date:             3 September, 2013




IESG Telechat date:         12 September, 2013




 




Summary:           The document is otherwise ready for publication, but contains some editorial issues that I suggest that the authors address.




 




Major issues: -




 




Minor issues: -




 




Nits/editorial comments:




 




General:




 




Q_GEN_1:           The RFC referencing is done in an inconsistent way: sometimes [RFC XXXX], sometimes (RFC XXXX), and sometimes RFC XXXX. I suggest to always use [RFC XXXX], OR to use [RFC XXXX] at the first
 occurrence, and then RFC XXXX.




 




 




Q_GEN_2:           The document mixes “PIM-SM” and “PIM Sparse-Mode” terminology. I suggest to use consistent terminology.




 




 




 




Section 2.2:




 




Q_2-2_1:             s/“five other anonymous operators”/ “five anonymous operators”




 




 




Section 2.2.1:




 




Q_2-2-1_1:         I suggest to replace “In the last fourteen years” with “Since <insert the year you are referencing>”.




 




 




Section 2.3:




 




Q_2-3_1:             I suggest to replace “Eight vendors have reported PIM Sparse-Mode implementations” with “Eight vendors responded to the survey”, to be consistent with the wording in section 2.2.




 




 




Section 6:




 




Q_6_1: Why is the section number needed? Why simply not call it “Appendix A. Questionnaire”?




 




 




Regards,




 




Christer