Hi, thanks for the review. I discussed this briefly with Ghyslain and we agree with your comments.
Regarding the interop-difference from 4995, we'll add a sentence to the introduction as suggested. Is it sufficient to update both this and the IANA allocation during AUTH48 as we will anyway update the acknoledgement section to add the CDR from the working group last-call? /Kristofer Brian E Carpenter wrote: 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-rohc-rfc4995bis-01.txt Reviewer: Brian Carpenter Review Date: 2009-12-02 IETF LC End Date: 2009-12-04 IESG Telechat date: Summary: Almost ready -------- Major issues: ------------- In the IANA considerations we find: The following profile identifiers have so far been allocated: Profile Identifier Usage Reference ------------------ ---------------------- --------- 0x0000 ROHC uncompressed RFC 4995 But this document obsoletes RFC 4995. Surely the reference should be updated to point to this document? Minor issues: ------------- I am surprised there is no clear indication where the substantive change to RFC 4995 lies. If I was an implementor, I would want to know what I have to fix. A note in the introduction that the substantive change is in section 5.2.4.1 would do it. (I had to use rfcdiff to find it.) _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
