Last Call Review of draft-ietf-roll-terminology-12

Request Review of draft-ietf-roll-terminology
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 13)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2013-03-30
Requested 2013-03-21
Authors Vasseur Jp
Draft last updated 2013-04-02
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -12 by Francis Dupont (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -13 by Francis Dupont
Secdir Last Call review of -12 by Alan DeKok (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Francis Dupont 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-roll-terminology-12-genart-lc-dupont-2013-04-02
Reviewed rev. 12 (document currently at 13)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2013-04-02


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


Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-roll-terminology-12.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20130323
IETF LC End Date: 20130330
IESG Telechat date: unknown

Summary: Ready

Major issues: None

Minor issues:
 There are some missing forward definitions for some abbrevs, i.e., the first
time an abbrev is used it should be explained too (*).
(*) "too" because it is explained (i.e., put in its long form) in its entry
which can be after the first use.

Nits/editorial comments:
 - Abstract page 1: e.g. -> e.g.,

 - ToC page 2 and 5 page 7: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments

 - 1 page 2: please introduce the HVAC abbrev (the Abstract should be considered
  as to be independent)

 - 2 page 3: commisioning -> commissioning

 - 2 pages 4 and other: i.e. -> i.e., and e.g. -> e.g.,
  (including at the end of line)

 - 2 page 4: K -> k (or if you prefer Kelvin -> kilo in units :-)

 - 2 page 5 (LLN): refrigeration.. -> refrigeration. or refrigeration...

 - 2 page 5 (PER): I suggest: error- even -> error - even

 - 2 page 5 (P2MP): an example of a missing forward definition for RPL,
  i.e.: RPL -> Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)

 - 2 page 6 (RPL): arbitratry -> arbitrary


Francis.Dupont at

PS: a terminology with a lot of cross references can be hard to read (so to
write). I had a very bad experience with an ISO OSI one in the past so
the only thing IMHO should be required is to be readable in one pass in
the beginning to end order (vs. hopping order), so my comments about
abbrev definitions.