Subject: [ipcdn] Changes incorporated in draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-signaling-12

From: "Sumanth Channabasappa" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 20:24:34 -0700

Folks,

The co-authors of the I-D titled "Network-Based Call Signaling (NCS) MIB
for PacketCable and IPCablecom Multimedia Terminal Adapters (MTAs)"
submitted draft-12 before the I-D Submission deadline and this email
summarizes the changes. 

As a note, it does contain technical changes in addition to the changes
based on feedback received (thanks to those who provided comments).

regards
Sumanth (on behalf of the co-authors)

Link:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-signaling-12.t
xt

----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. [Dan] The title of the document includes twice the word 'signaling' -
is this necessary? 
[Rich] I agree it seems to be redundant. I think occasionally folks
refer to "NCS signaling", which is also a redundant term.
[Sumanth] Agree; additionally removed redundant term 'NCS Signaling'
elsewhere in the document
----------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------

2. [Dan] idnits complains about un-used references: 

 - Unused Reference: 'ETSI-TS-101-909-4' is defined on line 3335, but
not referenced'   [ETSI-TS-101-909-4] ETSI TS 101 909-4:"Access and
Terminals (AT);'
 - Unused Reference: 'ETSI-EN-300-324-1' is defined on line 3354, but
not referenced '   [ETSI-EN-300-324-1] ETSI EN 300 324-1 V2.1.1
(2000-04):"V Interfaces'

[Rich] These references do appear in the REFERENCE clauses of several
objects each, e.g. pktcSigPulseSignalTable and pktcSigPulseSignalType. I
suppose these two documents could be explicitly referenced in section 4,
to make the idnits issue go away.

[Sumanth] Can we ignore the idnits bug? 
----------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------

3. [Dan] No need for the second paragraph in the Abstract. Anyway, this
is repeated in a 'boilerplate standard' manner in the Introduction
section.
[Rich, PC] I agree.

[Sumanth] Done
----------------------------------------------------------------------