Hey Lou, That text looks fine to me!
--Richard On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Lou Berger <lber...@labn.net> wrote: > Dan/Richard, > > > On 2/4/2013 10:05 PM, Lidan (Dan) wrote: > > Hi Richard, > > > > Thanks for the review of this draft! > > > >> Section 2.1. Would be helpful to either include the old formats > >> and/or say explicitly what is changing. > > > Added the original format of Config, ConfigAck and ConfigNack > > messages which are defined in RFC4204. > > > > I personally think it's a mistake to repeat definitions in non-bis RFCs. > I think this increases the possibility of mistakes and confusion (e.g., > when the text isn't copied properly or when the original document is > replaced). > > My original thought was to propose text to follow Richard's suggestion > of explicitly saying what has changed, but I see such text is there at > the start of section 2: > > LMP Config, ConfigNack and ConfigAck messages are modified by this > document to allow for the inclusion of multiple CONFIG objects. The > Config and ConfigNack messages were only defined to carry one CONFIG > object in [RFC4204]. The ConfigAck message, which was defined > without carrying any CONFIG objects in [RFC4204], is modified to > enable explicit identification of negotiated configuration > parameters. The inclusion of CONFIG objects in ConfigAck messages is > triggered by the use of the BehaviorConfig object (defined below) in > a received Config message. > > Richard, > > Is this text sufficient? Alternatively, this text can be moved to > immediately proceed the BNF. > > Much thanks > Lou > (document co-author) >
