Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-behave-dccp-03.txt

Le vendredi 17 octobre 2008 13:15:08 Miguel A. Garcia, vous avez écrit :
> 1) The draft says that it is intended to become a Standards Track.
> However, this document contains a collection of requirements. Typically
> Requirements draft are assigned to the category of Informational or BCP.
> I checked other similar requirement documents in the BEHAVE WG and their
> intended status is BCP. I think this draft should be a BCP.

Right. Will change.

> 2) As a matter of personal taste, I don't like to mention names of
> working groups in RFCs. This is because WGs are temporal arrangements.
> They stop existing after a few years, while RFCs are permanent. So,
> "BEHAVE" might not mean anything in the near future. This comment is due
> to the reference to "BEHAVE" in the abstract.

So like "published by the IETF" instead of "published by the BEHAVE wg"?

> 3) I know the RFC Editor allows well-known acronyms (e.g, TCP, UDP, and
> IP). But I am not so sure if "DCCP" and "SCTP" qualifies as well-known.
> So, it might be a good idea to expand it at a first occurrence
> (including the title).

That's going to be a long title, fine with me.

> 4) Typo: Section 10, 5th paragraph, remove the dot "." in the middle of
> this sentence:
>
>     Silently dropping the
>     Listen makes it harder to diagnose network problems. and forces
>     applications to wait for the DCCP stack to finish several
>     retransmissions before reporting an error.

Right.

-- 
Rémi Denis-Courmont
http://git.remlab.net/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=vlc-courmisch.git;a=summary
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art