Le vendredi 17 octobre 2008 13:15:08 Miguel A. Garcia, vous avez écrit : > 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.
Right. Will change. > 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. So like "published by the IETF" instead of "published by the BEHAVE wg"? > 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). That's going to be a long title, fine with me. > 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. Right. -- Rémi Denis-Courmont http://git.remlab.net/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=vlc-courmisch.git;a=summary _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
