[LinkSec] P802.1ab/D5.1 Ballot - Comments (with approve)
P802.1ab/D4 EMAIL BALLOT
26th August 2003
TO: Bill Lane
Editor, P802.1ab
SUBJECT: P802.1ab/D5.1 - Connectivity Discovery
_____ I Approve (may attach non-binding comments below)
_____ I Disapprove (must attach binding comments below)
_____ I Abstain for the following reasons (may attach non-binding comments
below):
______ Lack of Time
______ Lack of Expertise
______ Other: _______________________________________________
____________________________________________
(Name)
____________________________________________
(Telephone No.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
INCLUDE COMMENTS BELOW THIS POINT
NAME: Tony Jeffree
COMMENT TYPE: E (Editorial)>
CLAUSE: Front matter
PAGE: 2
LINE:
COMMENT START:
Lose the ", ......." at the end of the list of keywords, or complete the list.
COMMENT END:
SUGGESTED CHANGES START:
Do it.
SUGGESTED CHANGES END:
NAME: Tony Jeffree
COMMENT TYPE: E (Editorial)>
CLAUSE: 1.1
PAGE: 7
LINE: 34
COMMENT START:
Make this into a proper sentence.
COMMENT END:
SUGGESTED CHANGES START:
Start the sentence "The scope of this standard is..."
SUGGESTED CHANGES END:
NAME: Tony Jeffree
COMMENT TYPE: E (Editorial)>
CLAUSE: 1.1
PAGE: 7
LINE: 36
COMMENT START:
"...will facilitate..." implies that maybe this will happen sometime in the
future.
COMMENT END:
SUGGESTED CHANGES START:
Replace with "...facilitates..."
SUGGESTED CHANGES END:
NAME: Tony Jeffree
COMMENT TYPE: E (Editorial)>
CLAUSE: 1.1
PAGE: 7
LINE: 41
COMMENT START:
Numbered bullet list should start at a)
COMMENT END:
SUGGESTED CHANGES START:
Fix the numbering.
SUGGESTED CHANGES END:
NAME: Tony Jeffree
COMMENT TYPE: E (Editorial)>
CLAUSE: 1.1
PAGE: 7
LINE: 45,46
COMMENT START:
Not clear to me what it means for ..."other media protocols and media (to)
conform to this standard".
COMMENT END:
SUGGESTED CHANGES START:
Clarification needed. I don't think that we are trying to write any MAC/PHY
protocols here...at least, I hope not!
SUGGESTED CHANGES END:
NAME: Tony Jeffree
COMMENT TYPE: E (Editorial)
CLAUSE: 1.1
PAGE: 7
LINE: 47
COMMENT START:
I don't think that we are establishing the managed objects (implementations
do that); only the managed object definitions. Also, not clear to me that
the "given management domain" adds anything here, other than begging the
question as to what such given domains might be.
COMMENT END:
SUGGESTED CHANGES START:
objects -> object definitions
Lose "in a given management domain".
SUGGESTED CHANGES END:
NAME: Tony Jeffree
COMMENT TYPE: <E (Editorial)>
CLAUSE: 2
PAGE: 8
LINE: 47 on
COMMENT START:
The SNMP related references will need updating; see P802.1X Rev for detail.
COMMENT END:
SUGGESTED CHANGES START:
Fix it.
SUGGESTED CHANGES END:
NAME: Tony Jeffree
COMMENT TYPE: E (Editorial)>
CLAUSE: 3.2, 3.4
PAGE: 10
LINE:
COMMENT START:
Inconsistent font size
COMMENT END:
SUGGESTED CHANGES START:
Fix it
SUGGESTED CHANGES END:
NAME: Tony Jeffree
COMMENT TYPE: <E (Editorial)>
CLAUSE: 3.12
PAGE: 10
LINE:
COMMENT START:
Definitions should not contain examples. If you want to keep the example,
construct it as a NOTE after the definition.
COMMENT END:
SUGGESTED CHANGES START:
Strike "such as......2922]".
SUGGESTED CHANGES END:
NAME: Tony Jeffree
COMMENT TYPE: E (Editorial)>
CLAUSE: 3
PAGE: in general
LINE:
COMMENT START:
Several of these definitions really don't belong in the definitions section
at all, and should be mover to Clause 4 or to a subsection of 3 that
identifies things defined elsewhere. For example, LDPDU, LSAP. MSAP, and
SNMP could move to clause 4 without loss of specificity; PDU and (X)SAP are
well understood terms, and SNMP, SNMP Agent are defined elsewhere.
COMMENT END:
SUGGESTED CHANGES START:
Consider which of these definitions are really items being newly defined in
this standard. For the rest, either create a subsection of Clause 3 headed
"The following terms defined in XXX are used in this standard", or move
them to clause 4 as simple acronym expansions, as appropriate.
SUGGESTED CHANGES END: