Re: [bfcpbis] WGLC for draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis

I have reviewed the document and it looks pretty much ready.

I do have a couple of questions for clarification:
- Section 5.1 - Payload Length: states that "receiving server MAY send an
Error message"
but I would think that the client should know about the error. Is there a
specific reason this is a MAY versus a SHOULD or even a MUST? Why would the
error message matter if it's not required?

- Section 5.2 - "M" after Table 2 - I have a similar question about the 'M'
bit. RFC 4582 states that message is rejected if there is an unrecognized M
bit, whereas this document states that an error message MAY be sent.
Certainly, 4582 lacked appropriate normative language, but if the error
message is just a MAY, then why bother?

There are also a few nits that should be fixed/clarified before progressing.

Section 5.2.6 - Note under table 5:    "intended being used" -> "intended
to be used"

Section 6.1.: "e.g.,"  was changed to "e.g.".   The former is correct.

Section 9.1: You lost some indented paragraphs in this section - i.e., they
got shifted to align with the other paragraphs in that section.  I'm not
sure if that was intentional.

Section 16:
- New Primitives.  The text says five were added, but only 4 are listed and
that's all that's all that's defined per Figure 1.
- New error codes.  The text says that 3 are aded, but it looks there's
really 5 that have been added.
- Typo.  Referring to section 12.4.2 states that the change was from
SUPPORTED-PRIMITIVES
to SUPPORTED-PRIMITVIES but the latter is really the typo.

Regards,
Mary

On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 7:36 PM, Charles Eckel (eckelcu)
<eckelcu@cisco.com>wrote:

> Just a gentle reminder that we are into the last week for comments. Please
> review the draft and submit your comments by the Sept 28th, 2012 deadline
> (not 2011 as erroneously typed previously)
>
> Thanks,
> Charles (as co-chair)
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Charles Eckel (eckelcu)
> > Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 7:06 AM
> > To: bfcpbis@ietf.org
> > Subject: WGLC for draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis
> >
> > (As WG co-chair)
> >
> > This is to announce a working group last call for draft-ietf-bfcpbis-
> > rfc4582bis, "The Binary Floor Control Protocol (BFCP)".
> > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis/
> >
> > This is intended as a Standards Track RFC, obsoleting RFC 4582.
> > Please respond to the list by September 28th 2011 (i.e. 3 weeks) with any
> > comments.
> >
> > It is helpful to attempt to categorize your comment (e.g. technical
> issue vs.
> > editorial), and also  to provide any replacement text you feel is
> necessary.
> > If you review the document and have no comments, please tell the chairs
> > that you have reviewed it. This is always useful information in
> assessing the
> > degree of WG review and consensus behind the document.
> > Note, another WGLC for draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis will be run in
> parallel.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Charles
> _______________________________________________
> bfcpbis mailing list
> bfcpbis@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis
>