Hi Michael
Sorry I misread the text.
The text is fine as it is, and I leave it to you to see if there is an
improvement with a common definition.
I am correcting the review.
- Stewart
On 25/08/2017 11:53, Michael Tuexen wrote:
On 14. Aug 2017, at 22:02, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
Review result: Ready
Hi Stewart,
thanks for your review. See my comment in-line.
Best regards
Michael
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more information, please see the FAQ at
<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Document: draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-ndata-12
Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
Review Date: 2017-08-14
IETF LC End Date: 2017-08-25
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
Summary: This is a well written draft and is ready for publication.
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None
Nits/editorial comments:
You repeat the text:
"A message is considered in flight, if at least on of its I-DATA chunks is not
acknowledged in a non-renegable way" in two consecutive sections, maybe a
common definition could be used.
The first text covers "Message in flight", the second covers "Fragment in flight".
What is duplicated is the text (i.e. acknowledged by the cumulative TSN Ack) for
explaining "acknowledged in a non-renegable way". Giving the explanation only once
improves readability, I guess.
Best regards
Michael