Dear Francis, I’ve done the changes, but I need some more information: > 4.2 page 9 (connection-address): (ambiguous wording) > ... An IP address > SHOULD be used, but an FQDN MAY be used in place of an IP address.
[JIG] I’m not getting the ambiguity. Unusually, we deliberately _are_ recommending using an IP address over an FQDN but allowing both, and the reasoning for preferring an IP address is self evident from additional complexity in the succeeding sentences. Can kindly you help me here? Thanks Jeff P.S. Some inline comments: On 23 Jun 2014, at 16:44, Francis Dupont <[email protected]> wrote: > Nits/editorial comments: > - Abstract page 1 (and many other places): signalling -> signaling [JIG] A British English to US English problem (I’m British…). I caught another of these and fixed it in the draft. > > - ToC page 3 and 12 page 30: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments > > - 1 page 3: (style) too many "number" in > There have been a number of suggested ways of resolving the NAT- > traversal of media for RTSP of which a large number are already used > in implementations. > > - 3 page 5 (4) (and 6.10 page 20, 9 page 27): e.g. -> e.g., [JIG] This is my first IETF RFC so I don’t know the “house style” but from a British English viewpoint, you would not put a comma ever in front of “e.g.” in these cases. Nevertheless the changes have been made in the new draft. > > - 4.1 page 6: (style) must be -> has to be > > - 4.2 page 9 (connection-address): (ambiguous wording) > ... An IP address > SHOULD be used, but an FQDN MAY be used in place of an IP address. [JIG] I’m not getting the ambiguity. Unusually, we deliberately are recommending using an IP address over an FQDN but allowing both, and the reasoning for preferring an IP address is self evident from additional complexity in the succeeding sentences. Can kindly you help me here? > > - 4.2 page 10 (extension-att-*): delimeter -> delimiter > > - 6.3 page 16 (and 6.13 pages 22 and 23): > (uniform use of a space after ';') > RTP/AVP/TCP;unicast;interleaved=0-1 -> > RTP/AVP/TCP; unicast; interleaved=0-1 > > - 6.7 pages 18 and 19: Succeded -> Succeded [JIG] And this should be: Succeded -> Succeeded (notice the “ee”) and has been changed > > > - 7.1 page 23: will need to be run -> will be run > > - 9 page 26: i.e. -> i.e., This is my first IETF RFC so I don’t know the “house style” but from a British English viewpoint, you would not put a comma ever in front of “i.e.” in this case. Nevertheless the change has been made in the new draft. > > Regards > > [email protected] _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
