Since there is no author email address in the draft, I'm sending
this to the IETF Discussion list.
Issues:
Section 2.1:
"integer idenfier" -> "integer identifier"
Section 2.1, para 2:
"Implemenations" ->"Implementations"
Section 3.1, 3rd from last para:
"These bits determines" -> "These bits determine"
Section 3.2.3, para 2:
"sub braches but braches" -> "sub branches but branches"
Section 3.2.3, para 3:
"orginal" -> "original"
Section 3.3.2:
This section should mention the format for negative numbers (2's
comp, 1's comp, signed magnitude,...)
Section 4:
No values are given for designating the 4 types of Identifier.
Section 3.4:
Definition of Extended Frame does not allow an Identifier for
*any* new data type frame. Is this reasonable?
Section 4.2, para 2:
> Integer identifiers are used to make document less resource hungry.
^--the
> They are very efficient from resource point of view when compared to
^--a
> string idenfiers. Downside is that they make debugging a bit more
^--ti ^--The
> complicated. People are not good in remembering semantics bind to
at bound
> plain numbers so debugging tools maid need access to a look at table
may lookup
> to convert integer idenfiers to more human friendly strings.
^--ti
Section 4.3:
Ascii art diagram split across page break.
Section 5, para 2:
"Implemenations" -> "Implementations"
Section 5.1, last para:
"String indentifier" -> "String identifier"
Section 7, para 1:
"Implemenations" -> "Implementations"
Section "Author's Address":
No email address given for Jukka-Pekka Makela.
--
Bill McQuillan <McQuilWP@xxxxxxxxx>