Re: [Gen-art] 答复: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-behavior-negotiation-10

[Richard Barnes <[e-mail]>]

Hey Lou,

That text looks fine to me!

--Richard


On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Lou Berger <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Dan/Richard,
>
>
> On 2/4/2013 10:05 PM, Lidan (Dan) wrote:
> > Hi Richard,
> >
> > Thanks for the review of this draft!
> >
> >> Section 2.1.  Would be helpful to either include the old formats
> >> and/or say explicitly what is changing.
>
> > Added the original format of Config, ConfigAck and ConfigNack
> > messages which are defined in RFC4204.
> >
>
> I personally think it's a mistake to repeat definitions in non-bis RFCs.
>  I think this increases the possibility of mistakes and confusion (e.g.,
> when the text isn't copied properly or when the original document is
> replaced).
>
> My original thought was to propose text to follow Richard's suggestion
> of explicitly saying what has changed, but I see such text is there at
> the start of section 2:
>
>    LMP Config, ConfigNack and ConfigAck messages are modified by this
>    document to allow for the inclusion of multiple CONFIG objects. The
>    Config and ConfigNack messages were only defined to carry one CONFIG
>    object in [RFC4204]. The ConfigAck message, which was defined
>    without carrying any CONFIG objects in [RFC4204], is modified to
>    enable explicit identification of negotiated configuration
>    parameters. The inclusion of CONFIG objects in ConfigAck messages is
>    triggered by the use of the BehaviorConfig object (defined below) in
>    a received Config message.
>
> Richard,
>
> Is this text sufficient?  Alternatively, this text can be moved to
> immediately proceed the BNF.
>
> Much thanks
> Lou
> (document co-author)
>