Re: [dtn-interest] sdnv draft update

[Peter TB Brett <[e-mail]>]

On Thursday 22 January 2009 21:32:36 Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-RCN0)[VZ] wrote:
> As requested, I posted an update to the SDNV draft that
> had expired.  It's an update to the date only, I believe.
> All the comments that were raised on prior versions had
> been addressed, and I think it's ready for RG consensus
> call or whatever is required to wrap up and send forth.
>
> See:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-dtnrg-sdnv-01.txt

I spotted a couple of possible grammatical errors:

Section 4:

    32,767 in 2 bytes.  Both formats could encode values requiring up to
-   N bytes in N+2 bytes, where N<127.  The two major difference between
+   N bytes in N+2 bytes, where N<127.  The two major differences between
    this old SDNV format and the currently-used SDNV format is that the

...

-   The advantage in ease of parsing that the old format manifests itself
+   The advantage in ease of parsing the old format manifests itself
    in two aspects: (1) the size of the value is determinable ahead of
    time, in a way equivalent to parsing a TLV, and (2) the actual value


Regards,

                                      Peter


-- 
Peter Brett

Electronic Systems Engineer
Integral Informatics Ltd