Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dccp-simul-open-07.txt

From: "Miguel A. Garcia" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 16:54:18 +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-dccp-simul-open-07.txt
Reviewer: Miguel Garcia <[email-masked]>
Review Date: 2009-04-28
IETF LC End Date: 2009-04-30

Summary: This document is ready for publication as a standards track RFC.

Major issues: none

Minor issues: none

Nits/editorial comments: Just a couple of minor nits, in case you need to 
do a revision of the document.

- In Section 1.1, first sentence, the sentence should probably say "a 
DCCP server is located inside ***the perimeter controlled by*** a middlebox".

The same comment is also applicable to the second paragraph in Section 1.2.

- In Section 2.2.1, the fourth bullet point under Figure 1 seems to miss 
something to be readable. The text reads:

     "...is not related to the DCCP sequence number for normal DCCP 
messages Section 3".

perhaps it should be

     "...is not related to the DCCP sequence number for normal DCCP 
messages (see Section 3.1.1 for a description of the use of the DCCP 
sequence number)".

- The next sub-bullet point under the above. The text reads:
   "A DCCP server should set the high and low bits of the Sequence Number 
field to 0".

Question, shouldn't the "should" be a normative "SHOULD"?

- IANA Considerations section. The text reads.

"The decimal value 10 has been assigned to this types".

First, s/types/type

Second, has this value really been already assigned? Typically IANA 
allocates this numbers at the late stages of the process, so, I would 
have expected that the sentence should be a suggestion to IANA rather 
than a firm statement.

/Miguel
-- 
Miguel A. Garcia
+34-91-339-3608
Ericsson Spain