Re: [Rtg-dt-encap-considerations] draft-rtg-dt-encap-02 for review

["Larry Kreeger (kreeger)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Erik,

In reviewing the document I found the following grammar issues.

 - Larry
  

Section 8, 2nd para: "is a function of the preceding header the same was
 as IPv4 being identified by both an Ethernet type and an IP protocol".
Maybe "the same was as" -> "the same as"

Section 11.4, 1st bullet: "Need extensibility to be able to add".  I would
prepend "Encapsulations need extensibility..."

Section 13, "In summary" 2nd bullet: "If the encapsulation can..., the
leverage the approach", change "the leverage" to "then leverage".

Section 14, "In summary" 1st bullet: "Need extensibility to be able to
add".  I would prepend "Encapsulations need extensibility..."


Section 14, "In summary" 2nd bullet: "When encaps has checksum/CRC".
Change "has" to "have".




On 5/14/15 11:00 AM, "Erik Nordmark" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Attached is -02 of the document.
>
>Albert said he would check whether there are some additional text we
>want to add about the control word, but I've completed the other edits
>we have discussed.
>
>https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OvGxiNTPuncHl1N-6JH-6MJvZ3D9PK1LpjwsRg
>ArgJ8/ 
>is up to date with the issues, but doesn't have the exact same proposed
>text changes as the I-D.
>
>I edited the attached diffs to remove the diffs related to the change in
>pagination.
>
>Please review the changes, and check whether there are additional things
>we should lift out to the "In summary" bulleted lists.
>
>It would be good to submit this next week - if anything controversial
>shows up we can discuss it on the call next Thursday.
>
>Regards,
>    Erik
>