Thanks for the quick response!
See inline. I cut out sections that did not appear to need a further
response from me.
On Mar 13, 2009, at 8:07 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
[...]
It would be helpful to have referenceable numbers for the TLV
format figures.
Yeah, might be nice, but since the figures are not referenced
outside the section in which they appear, I think we won't bother
this time.
Okay, not a biggie.
Using non-mnemonic citations as if they were nouns in a sentence
creates extra work for the reader, who must flip back to the
references to understand the sentence. That is, the form
"...defined in [xxx]". It's better to say "defined in foo [xxx]".
It's not as bad with mnemonic citations (e.g. "defined in [foo]"),
but it can still cause confusion if text is quoted in other
documents without the associated reference section.
Hmmm.
This notation seems to be used pretty widely.
I'd hate to see text that said "..defined in RFC 1234 [RFC1234]." :-)
For the IETF community, an RFC number pretty much counts as a mnemonic
reference, since that's the way we talk about the documents. This
draft has some ITU references that are not mnemonic to me, but may be
to others.
In any case, please consider the citation comment as a suggestion for
future reference. I will not object further if the authors choose to
not to act on it.
[...]
section 3.2, first paragraph after the figure: "Length is set to
Sum[n] [4 + #32-bit words/4] where n is the
number of local prefixes included in the sub-TLV."
I'm not sure I understand the expression.
But you think you might? :-)
Hard doing scientific notation in ASCII, isn't it?
OLD
Length is set to Sum[n][4 + #32-bit words/4] where n is the
number of local prefixes included in the sub-TLV. The encoding of
each prefix potentially using fewer than four 32-bit words is
described below.
NEW
Length is set to the sum over all of the local prefixes included in
the sub-TLV of (4 + (number of 32-bit words in the prefix)/4 ).
The encoding of each prefix potentially using fewer than four
32-bit words is described below.
That helps. Actually, the addition of "... words in the prefix"
probably helps more than anything.
(I was thinking there might be a simpler expression, but on re-reading
I assume that the number of words per per prefix may vary across
prefix instances in a given instance of the sub-TLV, right?)
Who can keep up with the IPR change rate?
All IPR notices correct at time of submission.
No doubt they will be updated and correct many times in the next
weeks.
Hey, I'm just reporting what the tool said ;-) Hopefully things have
settled out there a bit. If we're lucky.
Many thanks,
Adrian
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
