Subject: Re: [decade] review of draft-ietf-decade-problem-statement-05.txt

From: Songhaibin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 07:30:11 +0000

Hi Francis,

Thank you very much for the Gen-ART review. The nits will be resolved before publication.

BR,
-Haibin (as individual)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 1:17 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: review of draft-ietf-decade-problem-statement-05.txt
> 
> 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 resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
> you may receive.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-decade-problem-statement-05.txt
> Reviewer: Francis Dupont
> Review Date: 20120224
> IETF LC End Date: 20120306
> IESG Telechat date: unknown
> 
> Summary: Ready
> 
> Major issues: None
> 
> 
> Minor issues: None
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
>  - 1 page 3: P2P and CDN are not in the list of well known abbrevs
>   (IMHO for the first one because P2P means Point-to-Point too)
>   so should be introduced at the first use in the body (and for CDN
>   IMHO as soon as possible, this is why I put this in 1)
> 
>  - 1 page 3: in the networks. -> in networks. ?
> 
>  - 3.1 page 4: IMHO [Internet Study 2008/2009] should be removed to
>   leave only the reference, i.e., [Internet_Study_2008-2009]
> 
>  - 4.1 page 7: 'nor can they manage access' is a wording which could
>   (so should) be improved a bit, IMHO 'nor access' is enough
> 
>  - A pages 11 and 12: e.g. -> e.g., (also at end of line but it is
>   in an appendix 'to be removed by the RFC Editor'...)
> 
> Regards
> 
> [email-masked]
> 
> PS: my dictionary dislikes 'infrastructural'?