Hi Juliusz, On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 06:13:05PM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: > I hope to do something with this (hopefully an experimental RFC), so > please take the time to review it.
§1: "The basic protocol" -> "The base Babel protocol" §2: I would rename the section into "Extensions of the Babel protocol" and turn the introduction into a new sub-section "2.1 new versions" (and re-number the following ones accordingly). §2¶2: "completely incompatible" -> "non backwards-compatible" §2.2¶1: you use "actual length", "base length" and "length" to mean the same thing; I would pick one (preferably the first) and use it consistently. §2.2¶3: remove "used by different extensions" (spurious and confusing; it might be the same extension). §2.2¶3: "for all TLVs" -> "globally" §2.2.1: "see below" -> "see Section 2.2.2.1" (assuming no re-numbering) §2.2.1: the top line of the packet diagram is longer than the bottom one. I think I understand the rationale (Length might be 1), but I still find it confusing. §2.2.2.2: idem. §2.3: I find "bits with values 80 and 40 hexadecimal" a bit odd (the bits have no value, only a position, and "hexadecimal" seems to have been added as an after-thought), but every other proposal I could come up with was worse. At least yours does not suffer from bit-ordering ambiguity. Maybe "hexadecimal values"? §3: "completely incompatible" -> "non backwards-compatible" Best, -- Gabriel _______________________________________________ Babel-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/babel-users
