Subject: [bmwg] Re: Last call on draft-ietf-bmwg-dsmterm-09

From: Al Morton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 22:24:41 -0400

BMWG,

The WG Last Call on dsmterm-09 concluded with two comments:

1. The capacity-term comment has been addressed in the current
version.

2. Development of the corresponding methodology document
reveals that there may be new terms that need definition,
and existing terms that could be deleted if they are not used
in the methodology.
This is a manageable risk inherent in the process to agree first on terms,
then methods.  Any new terms needed could be defined in an Appendix
and moved to the terminology memo as an update. At the same time,
orphan terms could be removed (but these pose less of a problem).
It is worth noting that, although the editors have a
well-studied view of the methodology topic, the methods that achieve
WG consensus are likely to evolve during the comment process.
All indications point to very active discussions of methodology
on the list.

At this time, we ask that the 09 draft be revised and re-submitted
to fix the following editorial issues:

- There are two complete versions of the draft text in the 09 file.

- The dates, though incorrect, indicate that the draft expires in April.

- There are a number of deviations from the I-D nits requirements.
Kevin has complied a summary of nit-fixes to get the editing
started (see below). More editing will likely be needed, so please
reconcile the formatting carefully with http://www.ietf.org/ID-nits.html

This last point is a word-to-the-wise for *all BMWG editors*

When the revised version of the draft is submitted, there will
be another short WG Last Call to be sure that no technical issues
have emerged.

Kevin/Al
BMWG WG Co-Chairs

o Nits section 1.1, formating.

    dsmterm needs to be spellchecked. E.g., "mulitcast" for multicast;
    "out-sequence" for out-of-sequence.

    Many instances that contrast the "No hyphenation for
    line-breaks" mandate.

    Several instances that don't conform to the "ASCII-only, no
    control characters (other than CR, NL & FF) edicts. E.g.,
    "packetsÆ", "ôMean Jitterö", or "ômean ipdvö".  Plain ASCII
    is all that's allowed.

o Nits section 1.2, required sections all IDs.

    dsmterm needs to have it's boilerplate updated to one of the
    standard ones per http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt.
    (It's off slightly.)

    Copyright Notice should be revised to reflect current year.

o Nits section 2, content issues.

    dsmterm most likely will get called on its use of keywords
    like MUST, SHALL, etc, by the RFC 2119 reviewers. This is most
    likely due to the fact that 2119 was written in the context
    of a standards track documents. (See:
    http://www.rfc-editor.org/policy.html#policy.2119ref )
    To better reflect the usage of these keywords in informational
    benchmarks, I have made suggestions in the past that
    editors consider wording that disclaims the benchmark as
    standards track effort and reaffirms the context in which the
    keywords are needed.  See section 2 of
    http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-mcastm-14.txt
    for an example.

_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg

---

From: Al Morton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 22:24:41 -0400

BMWG,

Kevin/Al
BMWG WG Co-Chairs