AB,
You wrote:
but the authors are gaining so far.
That may be your opinion.
But it is absolutely not my opinion.
As the author of this draft I have worked four years to
address all the comments received, and improve the quality
of the document.
So you had four years to review and comment.
On Oct 13, 2013, at 7:32 AM, Abdussalam Baryun
wrote:
> Yes, my comment meant that it is a reply to the review message that there may
> be not clear definition from other participant point of view. Sorry my review
> is still not complete, I will send it. Do you mean my reply is not right, if
Yes, my comment meant that it is a reply to the review message that there
may be not clear definition from other participant point of view. Sorry
my review is still not complete, I will send it. Do you mean my reply is
not right, if I like to give a short comment before my full review.
AB
On Sund
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 defi
AB,
ITU and ITU-T are both in
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-style-guide/abbrev.expansion.txt listed as
one of the well-known acronyms we
can use without expanding it; all the specific definition you need :) !
/Loa
On 2013-10-13 17:39, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
The draft does not list ITU in
The draft does not list ITU in abbreviation, there are many terminology not
clear but more general definition. I prefer specific defining. Also many
times refers to references to define without mentioning what was that
definition, is that defined only in ITU and IETF cannot define its
technology, o
