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

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.

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.

----------------------------------------------------------------
   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.

Typos
-----

In Section 1.2, paragraph starting "The problem comes..." has
mismatched parenthesis.  Probably a close after [5] was dropped.

In that same paragraph "renabled" => "re-enabled".

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.

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.

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