I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Document: draft-ietf-behave-dccp-03.txt
Reviewer: Miguel Garcia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Review Date: 2008-10-17
IETF LC End Date: 2008-10-20
Summary: The draft is almost ready for publication, but perhaps as a BCP
rather than as a "proposed standard". Please see some comments below.
Comments:
1) The draft says that it is intended to become a Standards Track.
However, this document contains a collection of requirements. Typically
Requirements draft are assigned to the category of Informational or BCP.
I checked other similar requirement documents in the BEHAVE WG and their
intended status is BCP. I think this draft should be a BCP.
2) As a matter of personal taste, I don't like to mention names of
working groups in RFCs. This is because WGs are temporal arrangements.
They stop existing after a few years, while RFCs are permanent. So,
"BEHAVE" might not mean anything in the near future. This comment is due
to the reference to "BEHAVE" in the abstract.
3) I know the RFC Editor allows well-known acronyms (e.g, TCP, UDP, and
IP). But I am not so sure if "DCCP" and "SCTP" qualifies as well-known.
So, it might be a good idea to expand it at a first occurrence
(including the title).
4) Typo: Section 10, 5th paragraph, remove the dot "." in the middle of
this sentence:
Silently dropping the
Listen makes it harder to diagnose network problems. and forces
applications to wait for the DCCP stack to finish several
retransmissions before reporting an error.
/Miguel
--
Miguel A. Garcia
+34-91-339-3608
Ericsson Spain
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
