[Gen-art] Re: review of draft-ietf-rohc-rfc3095bis-framework-03.txt

As per Magnus request, the draft has been updated. See inline what has been 
changed.

BR,
/L-E

> -First comment is an exception, it is technical: 4.4 page 11 doesn't
> metion that ROHC has the capability to work without a feedback channel,
> i.e., on simplex/one-way links. As it is both an unique and important
> in some cases capability IMHO it should be mentioned somewhere...

This should be clear from other places in the draft, and does not really
fit well here where only the ROHC channel is discussed. There is also
a reference here to the terminology and channel mapping RCF, where
more material on how to map ROHC on top of different channel
scenarios can be found.

> -The second exception is the TCP profile in 6 page 32 which is not yet
> an RFC, so the RFC editor could have to wait for it and update the
> document (it is not an issue but RFC editor should be warned).

This is an Informational reference, so it is not a show-stopper in any
way. By the way, the TCP profile was just submitted to the AD. =)

> -There are many cases of "i.e." and "e.g." not folloed by a comma,
> 2.2 page 5 (2), 3.1 page 7, 4.4 pagee 11 (3), 12 (4), 4.6 page 13,
> 5 page 13, 5.2.5 page 235.3.1.4 page 26, 6 page 30.

This is not an error!

> -In 2.1 page 4 (NACK): Acknowledgement -> Acknowledgment
> -In 3.2 page 7: acknowledgements -> acknowledgments
> -In 5.2.4.1 last line of page 21: acknowledgement -> acknowledgment.

Corrected, now the document should be consistent in this regard.

> -In 4.3 page 10: "extendable" is not a valid English word?

Actually it is!

> -In 4.3 page 10, "feeback from implementers have also" -> has?

Corrected!

> -In 4.4 page 11 there are two "make it possible" which IMHO should be
> "make possible".

Not changed, current text seems correct to us!

> -In 4.4 at the top of page 12: their definition assume -> definitions.

There is one common definition in this regard. -> No change.

> -In 4.5 page 12: and it then -> and then.

Agree, changed!

> -In 5.1.1 page 14: one another need not even have CID spaces -> to have
> CID space

This became "...do not even need to have CID space..."

> -In 6 page 30: fields, or ... types, updates -> update (without the 
> comma?)

Agree, changed (but with the comma). 

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