Hey Lou,
That text looks fine to me!
--Richard
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Lou Berger <lberger@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dan/Richard,
I personally think it's a mistake to repeat definitions in non-bis RFCs.
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 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)