> On Aug 17, 2016, at 8:20 PM, Paul Giralt (pgiralt) <pgir...@cisco.com> wrote: > > >> On Aug 17, 2016, at 6:26 PM, Ben Campbell <b...@nostrum.com> wrote: >> >>> Back to the current document: I have reread s3 of RFC 7206 and there are >>> some points that need to be sorted out: >>> >>> - The term 'end-to-end' is given a slightly specialized meaning in RFC >>> 7206. This is presumably carried through to the draft under review, but >>> the need to refer to the end-to-end definition is not mentioned in the >>> draft. >>> >>> - The use of 'session' as a shorthand for the specific meaning of >>> 'communication session' defined in RFC 7206 ought to be emphasized within >>> the draft since the shorthand in RFC 7206 is technically limited to the RFC >>> (ok, this is somewhat nitpicking but easy to misinterpret.) >> >> I agree with both of the above points. Authors?
I think it is nuanced but worth pointing out those subtleties, especially session->communication session. Thanks, Gonzalo > > These are fair points and can easily be addressed with some additional > verbiage in Section 3. _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
