Hi, I am having sever difficulty parsing all of the information from your comment. And currently cannot see anything actionable by the authors.
> The draft does not list ITU in abbreviation, Loa has answered why this is not necessary. > there are many terminology not clear but more general definition. I > prefer specific defining. This comment gives us nothing to go on! Which terminology do you find not clear but is a more general definition? And why is this a problem? You cannot expect the authors to fix or even discuss something if you do not show them what you are talking about. > Also many times refers to references to define without mentioning > what was that definition, What do you mean? Can you give an example and say how you think it should be? > is that defined only in ITU and IETF cannot define its technology, or > is it agreeing on a joint definition so IETF is just following ITU in some > terms. *This* document is seeking IETF consensus. If that consensus is reached all definitions will be IETF definitions. If those definitions originate in ITU-T documents, they are also ITU-T definitions. If ITU-T documents make normative reference to IETF documents that contain definitions, those definitions are ITU-T definitions. Maybe I have missed the point of your comment. Adrian
