Hi all, For the record, here's how I'm resolving Ran's comments. Note that draft submission is disabled at the moment. I'll be submitting a new version as soon as possible after it is re-enabled.
>> From: Ran Atkinson <[email protected]> >> >> 1.2 Confusion >> If "may" in the last sentence is referring to "permission", >> then it is fine. If the intended meaning refers to "possibility", >> then please edit s/may/might/ Applied suggested edit. >> 3.4 Readability and page layout would be improved >> if the sundry (1) through (4) were indented and >> each new number were the first non-whitespace on its line. Applied, but not convinced. Other opinions? >> 3.6 Reference >> Please cite IEN-1 at the end of the first sentence. >> I believe that is the earliest document saying this. >> If an earlier reference is available, then one might >> substitute that for the IEN-1 reference. >> >> >> [IEN-1] C.J. Bennett, S.W. Edge, & A.J. Hinchley, >> "Issues in the Interconnection of Datagram >> Networks", Internet Experiment Note (IEN) 1, >> INDRA Note 637, PSPWN 76, University College >> London, 29 July 1977. >> <http://www.postel.org/ien/pdf/ien001.pdf> Unfortunately, this particular PDF file doesn't seem to render properly on my system (MacOSX 10.6.4, Preview.app). I was able to render it using Adobe Reader. Reference added. >> 3.7 The tense of the verb is incorrect. As this is a >> hypothetical case (the if clause), the tense should >> be the subjunctive: >> >> s/if a tunneling mechanism is tunnelling was used/ >> /if a tunneling mechanism is tunnelling were used/ Good point, fixed. >> 3.7 Suggest eliminating one pronoun in the interest of >> clarity: >> >> s/part of a solution, it/part of a solution, tunnelling/ Sure, fixed. >> 3.7 Aside: >> In English, the spelling would be "tunneling". >> I can't claim to know the correct American spelling, >> as I've always used English spelling. Webster shows both spellings as acceptable, with one 'l' preferred. Shifting to that. >> 3.10 Aside: >> Would it be OK if we said "capabilities" instead of >> "functionality" ? I actually think that there's an important distinction here: there are many capabilities of the routing system today that are not in active use, such as deaggregation. I don't think that an architecture needs to support all capabilities, as it means that we must propagate our overhead as well. Tony _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
