[Gen-art] Re: REVIEW: draft-ietf-avt-rfc2833bisdata-06.txt

Thanks for the review. Responses below.

Michael A. Patton wrote:
> Attached is my review of the specified document, submitted as part of
> the Gen-ART process.  For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
> <http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html>.
> 
> Document Tag: draft-ietf-avt-rfc2833bisdata-06.txt
> Document Title: Definition of Events For Modem, FAX, and Text Telephony Signals
> Intended Status: Proposed Standard
> Shepherding AD: Cullen Jennings
> Review Trigger: Telechat
> 
> To the Author/Editor: Please wait for direction from your document
> shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
> 
> 
> ----------------  Begin review  ----------------
> 
> Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that
> 	should be fixed before publication.
> 
> The two nits are very minor and should not slow down approval, but if
> they can be addressed as others are, that would be an improvement in
> this document.
> 
> 
> Minor comments
> --------------
> 
> Should be a note to RFC Editor about references to RFC xxxx.  These
> are all references to [4] which is an ID to be simultaneously released
> as an RFC.  However, (as noted below) not all are marked.
> 
[PTT] Note done.

> I note in the table in 2.7.1 there's no allowance for some
> combinations, which I know I've used in the past and have equipment in
> my home to generate, specifically B103 at 110.  It may just be that
> none of these combinations are actually in use any more (I certainly
> don't use them, I just collect 1970's era computer equipment :-), but
> are you really sure?  Wouldn't it make sense to just define a complete
> orthogonal set?  To the best of my knowledge both B103 and V21 were
> used at both 110 and 300 in full duplex applications, and as far as I
> know may still be at some location.
> 
[PTT] The combinations shown in the document are those mentioned in Rec. 
V.18 for text telephony. This is the primary target of the indicators, 
so I don't think the others are required. One can always use the general 
data indicator VBDGen.

> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>    The following editorial issues are noted for the convenience
>    of possible copy editors but are not part of the technical review.
> 
> Clarity
> -------
> 
> Reference 4 has old version number...to be fixed when it's an RFC anyway.
> 
[PTT] Fixed.
> 
> Typos
> -----
> 
> In Section 1.2, paragraph starting "The problem comes..." has
> mismatched parenthesis.  Probably a close after [5] was dropped.
> 
[PTT] Fixed.

> In that same paragraph "renabled" => "re-enabled".
> 
[PTT] Fixed.

> In 2.5 bullet item b, the break at the space between "1" and "s" could
> cause some confusion.  This suggests that all number space "s"
> sequences should probably mark the space as non-breaking.
> 
[PTT] Fixed.

> In Section 2.7.1 there is a reference to RFC xxxx without a [4], but
> I'm pretty sure that's what was meant.
> 
[PTT] Right. Fixed.
> 

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art