Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ice-rfc5245bis-16

[Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]>]

Hi Christer

Thanks for your reply

A few follow-up comments inline.


On 26/01/2018 10:33, Christer Holmberg wrote:
>
> ---
>
>> SB> You introduce Ta, but it would be so much kinder to the reader to
>> SB> give it a real name.
> Ta was defined in RFC 5245, and it's commonly used in ICE-related
> discussions, so I think it would cause confusion to change the name at
> this point.

I understand. Maybe some words to explain it a little. Perhaps "the foo 
timer known in this technology as Ta" of something similar.

>
>> You say "Let HTO" again a user friendly name would be helpful to the new
>> reader
> The name was provided by transport people that provided text. As it¹s
> similar to RTO, I¹d like to keep it.

I see what you are doing. You could however give it a name and say known 
as HTO. A name just
makes it easier to remember what it does.

>
> ---
>
>> Appendix B is great, particularly from section B5 onwards. It would be
>> great to forward reference this to help the reader understand the
>> normative text earlier in the document.
> Any particular place where you would like to have the reference? In the
> Introduction?
  Yes a heads up to to Appendix in the Intro would be useful, the a 
pointer to the
specific section when you first introduce a parameter doing something in 
the protocol.

Thanks

Stewart