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 revision No specific revision (document currently at 03)
Type IETF Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2013-09-03
Requested 2013-08-22
Authors Lianshu Zheng , Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang , Rishabh Parekh
I-D last updated 2015-10-14 (Latest revision 2013-09-18)
Completed reviews Genart IETF Last Call review of -02 by Christer Holmberg (diff)
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -02 by Leif Johansson (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Christer Holmberg
State Completed
Request IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601-update-survey-report by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 02 (document currently at 03)
Result Ready
Completed 2013-09-11
review-ietf-pim-rfc4601-update-survey-report-02-genart-lc-holmberg-2013-09-11-00

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