Subject: Proposal for LLMNR Issue 31: Miscellaneous NITs

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 05:22:04 -0700 (PDT)

My recommendation is that the changes proposed below be accepted. Any
objections?

Issue 31: Miscellaneous NITs
Submitter: Randy Presuhn
Submitter email address: [email-masked]
Date first submitted: April 4, 2003
Reference:
Document: LLMNR-15
Comment type: E
Priority: S
Section: Various
Rationale/Explanation of issue:

A few minor editorial things jumped out at me when I looked
at <draft-ietf-dnsext-mdns-15.txt>

- In some places "." at the end of a sentence is followed by
a single space. In others, there are two spaces. It should
be two spaces consistently.

- On page 11 in section 4, the second and third bullets go
past column 72.

- sections 7 and 8 don't consistently follow the format used in
draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-04.txt, especially regarding
the order of initials and names in author lists.

- There is a superfluous '"' at the end of the copyright
statement near the end of the document.

- DNS isn't expanded on first use. (I wouldn't have noticed,
had the RFC editor not made us expand "SNMP" and "MIB" on
first use in some recent RFCs. :-)

- DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 should be expanded on first use.
- Page 3: "adhoc" -> "ad hoc"

- Page 4: "possible reevaluate" -> "possible to reevaluate"

- Page 4: "in particular is" -> "in particular, is"

- Page 4: "Requirements" isn't quite the right title for section 1.1
I'd merge it into the end of section 1.2.

- In general, there are a lot of DNS-isms (RR, RDATA, RCODE, TC,
AAAA, A, etc.) It might be helpful to point to the appropriate
document for these in some kind of catch-all entry in 1.2, rather
than trying to address each one individually on first use.

- Section 2.1: "Type" -> "type"

- Section 2.1: "exist (that" -> "exist. (That" and "section)." ->
"section.)"

- Section 3.2.1, last paragraph: is "recommended" supposed to be
"RECOMMENDED"?

- Section 4, first paragraph: "would, ordinarily." -> "would."

- Section 4, second paragraph: is the mix of "MAY" and "may" intended?

- Section 4.1: "wish" -> "need" (less anthropomorphic)

- Section 5: "peer to peer" -> "peer-to-peer"
- If the "TBD" items are to be filled in the RFC editor, it might
be a good idea to flag them as such, in addition to what's already
there in section 6. (On section 6, is the intent that the TCP and
UDP port numbers must be the same? The current text *could*
be read that way.)

Randy

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>