AB
On Sunday, October 13, 2013, Adrian Farrel wrote:
On Sunday, October 13, 2013, Adrian Farrel wrote:
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.
You mean that IETF agrees to do that as per a RFC xxxx passed or community awareness.
> there are many terminology not clear but more general definition. I
> prefer specific defining.
This comment gives us nothing to go on! Which terminology do you find not clear
but is a more general definition? And why is this a problem?
You cannot expect the authors to fix or even discuss something if you do not
show them what you are talking about.
I am talking about the draft in overall, I will do my review if time is available.
> Also many times refers to references to define without mentioning
> what was that definition,
What do you mean? Can you give an example and say how you think it should be?
Will be shown in a full review message, this was a comment message, but thanks for your advise
> is that defined only in ITU and IETF cannot define its technology, or
> is it agreeing on a joint definition so IETF is just following ITU in some
> terms.
*This* document is seeking IETF consensus. If that consensus is reached all
definitions will be IETF definitions. If those definitions originate in ITU-T
documents, they are also ITU-T definitions. If ITU-T documents make normative
reference to IETF documents that contain definitions, those definitions are
ITU-T definitions.
Maybe I have missed the point of your comment.
The point is why do we need other organisation definitions, or why did the author use those definitions, my point is any definition should relate to internet technology not references of other org, we may use other definitions for ours.
Adrian