Eric, thanks for the followup!
Authors: Please email me a corresponding RFC Editor Note, I will include it in the writeup and issue the ballot.
Thanks, Lars On Sep 26, 2006, at 23:26, Gray, Eric wrote:
I just had a fresh look at the -07 version of this draft and I felt that all of my commments were addressed. However, in one case the fix actually makes it harder to read. I had pointed out that MPA was not expanded anywhere in the draft. Caitlin had suggested that a reference could be added. This is what happened, however the reference replaces the one instance of the word - so it is not immediately clear what the reference refers to. The new text reads: "DDP Segments are as defined in [I-D.ietf-rddp-ddp]. The DDP Segment Chunk serves the same purpose as the [I-D.ietf-rddp-mpa] Upper Layer PDU (MULPDU) in that it carries DDP Segments over a reliable protocol with added sequencing information." The problem is that - by replacing the acronym MPA with the reference [I-D.ietf-rddp-mpa], it is not immediately obvious what the 'M' in "MULPU" stands for (until and unless you are able to pick up on the fact that this reference defines MPA). I suggest adding "MPA" back in - along the lines of: "... the MPA [I-D.ietf-rddp-mpa] Upper Layer PDU (MULPDU) ..." This seems awkward (it might have better to add MPA to the list of acronyms, defined in section 2, and inserted the reference there), but it takes a bit less thought to follow this way. Chances are this could be handled as a note to the RFC Editor.
Lars -- Lars Eggert NEC Network Laboratories
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
