Thanks for this review, it is much appreciated. All these comments are
valid, and I have made the corrections in my copy of the draft. I plan
to issue a new revision on conclusion of the Last Call.
Best wishes,
Gorry
Miguel A. Garcia wrote:
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Document: draft-ietf-dccp-simul-open-07.txt
Reviewer: Miguel Garcia <miguel.a.garcia@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Review Date: 2009-04-28
IETF LC End Date: 2009-04-30
Summary: This document is ready for publication as a standards track RFC.
Major issues: none
Minor issues: none
Nits/editorial comments: Just a couple of minor nits, in case you need
to do a revision of the document.
- In Section 1.1, first sentence, the sentence should probably say "a
DCCP server is located inside ***the perimeter controlled by*** a
middlebox".
The same comment is also applicable to the second paragraph in Section 1.2.
- In Section 2.2.1, the fourth bullet point under Figure 1 seems to miss
something to be readable. The text reads:
"...is not related to the DCCP sequence number for normal DCCP
messages Section 3".
perhaps it should be
"...is not related to the DCCP sequence number for normal DCCP
messages (see Section 3.1.1 for a description of the use of the DCCP
sequence number)".
- The next sub-bullet point under the above. The text reads:
"A DCCP server should set the high and low bits of the Sequence Number
field to 0".
Question, shouldn't the "should" be a normative "SHOULD"?
- IANA Considerations section. The text reads.
"The decimal value 10 has been assigned to this types".
First, s/types/type
Second, has this value really been already assigned? Typically IANA
allocates this numbers at the late stages of the process, so, I would
have expected that the sentence should be a suggestion to IANA rather
than a firm statement.
/Miguel
