Subject: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-rohc-rfc3095bis-framework-03.txt

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 16:42:22 +0100

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-rohc-rfc3095bis-framework-03.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont 
Review Date: 2006-11-26
IETF LC End Date: 2006-11-28

IESG Telechat date: unknown

Summary: Ready

Comments: almost all the comments are about wording...

-First comment is an exception, it is technical: 4.4 page 11 doesn't
metion that ROHC has the capability to work without a feedback channel,
i.e., on simplex/one-way links. As it is both an unique and important
in some cases capability IMHO it should be mentioned somewhere...

-The second exception is the TCP profile in 6 page 32 which is not yet
an RFC, so the RFC editor could have to wait for it and update the
document (it is not an issue but RFC editor should be warned).

-There are many cases of "i.e." and "e.g." not folloed by a comma,
2.2 page 5 (2), 3.1 page 7, 4.4 pagee 11 (3), 12 (4), 4.6 page 13,
5 page 13, 5.2.5 page 235.3.1.4 page 26, 6 page 30.

-In 2.1 page 4 (NACK): Acknowledgement -> Acknowledgment

-There is a spurious ";" after "fields" at the beginning of 3.1 page 7.

-In 3.2 page 7: acknowledgements -> acknowledgments

-In 4.3 page 10: "extendable" is not a valid English word?

-In 4.3 page 10, "feeback from implementers have also" -> has?

-In 4.4 page 11 there are two "make it possible" which IMHO should be
"make possible".

-In 4.4 at the top of page 12: their definition assume -> definitions.

-In 4.5 page 12: and it then -> and then.

-In 5.1.1 page 14: one another need not even have CID spaces -> to have
CID space

-In 5.2.4.1 last line of page 21: acknowledgement -> acknowledgment.

-In 6 page 30: fields, or ... types, updates -> update (without the comma?)

Regards

[email-masked]

PS: of course everything can (i.e., should) be fixed at AUTH48 or by
the RFC editor itself!

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

---

From: "Lars-Erik Jonsson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 16:21:31 +0100

As per Magnus request, the draft has been updated. See inline what has been 
changed.

BR,
/L-E

> in some cases capability IMHO it should be mentioned somewhere...

This should be clear from other places in the draft, and does not really
fit well here where only the ROHC channel is discussed. There is also
a reference here to the terminology and channel mapping RCF, where
more material on how to map ROHC on top of different channel
scenarios can be found.

> document (it is not an issue but RFC editor should be warned).

This is an Informational reference, so it is not a show-stopper in any
way. By the way, the TCP profile was just submitted to the AD. =)

> 5 page 13, 5.2.5 page 235.3.1.4 page 26, 6 page 30.

This is not an error!

> -In 5.2.4.1 last line of page 21: acknowledgement -> acknowledgment.

Corrected, now the document should be consistent in this regard.

> -In 4.3 page 10: "extendable" is not a valid English word?

Actually it is!

> -In 4.3 page 10, "feeback from implementers have also" -> has?

Corrected!

> -In 4.4 page 11 there are two "make it possible" which IMHO should be

Not changed, current text seems correct to us!

> -In 4.4 at the top of page 12: their definition assume -> definitions.

There is one common definition in this regard. -> No change.

> -In 4.5 page 12: and it then -> and then.

Agree, changed!

> -In 5.1.1 page 14: one another need not even have CID spaces -> to have

This became "...do not even need to have CID space..."

> -In 6 page 30: fields, or ... types, updates -> update (without the 

Agree, changed (but with the comma).