Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-behave-multicast-03.txt

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 18:35:58 +0200

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).

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

Document: draft-ietf-behave-multicast-03.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date:  3 oct 2006
IETF LC Date: 2 oct 2006
IESG Telechat date: not known yet

Summary: Ready

Comments: I have two very minor suggestions:
 - 2.1 page 4: in "as if it was a host" was -> is (or were)?
   (I propose to let the RFC editor decide)
 - some lines after, I believe the fact "This document is a companion
   document to "NAT Behavioral Requirements for Unicast UDP"
   [I-D.ietf-behave-nat-udp]." should be exposed as soon as possible,
   i.e., in the introduction (section 2), for instance between NAT/NAPT
   (first paragraph) and PIM/IGMP (second paragraph).
   BTW this can be done in the behave-nat-udp draft itself, for instance
   in its applicability statement (just another change). I don't
   believe to add an informative reference from it to this document
   would be a problem.

Regards

[email-masked]

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

---

From: "Dan Wing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 09:58:18 -0700

Thanks for your review!  I'll incorporate those changes into the followon
revision to the document.

-d

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 9:36 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-behave-multicast-03.txt
>