Subject: Typos in rel-req draft...

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 13:38:10 +0200

Hi everybody!

	I think I found some typos in this draft. Here they are:

	- Section 1: "... TCP type congestion control within the the
network..." should be "... TCP type congestion control within the
network..."

	- Section 3.1.1, Rel-Request Correlation ID: "... the Rel-Request
Correlation ID field of the REL-AC. The..." should be "... the Rel-Request
Correlation ID field of the REL-ACK. The..."

	- Section 3.1.2, at the beginning: "... were not understood (based
on the reporting bits as defined in 3.1.1 or refused..." should be "... were
not understood (based on the reporting bits as defined in 3.1.1) or
refused..."

	- Section 3.1.2, REL-REQ Parameter Response: "... By default if a
responder does not include a an Error..." should be "... By default if a
responder does not include an Error...". Also, I don't know if there is
another typo regarding this paragraph, but it appears about at the end of
the section, with really slightly differences, it seems a cut and paste
mistake, or maybe it is just to let it clear...

	- Section 3.1.2, REL-REQ Parameter Error Types: "49158 (0xC008)"
should be "49160 (0xC008)". Immediately after this, in the parameter
structure, "Type = 49157 or 49158", again should be "Type = 49157 or 49160"

	- Section 4.1, B4): "Note: That the the total number..." should be
"Note: The total number..." or "Note that the total number..."

	- Section 4.2, C2): "If the value found in the serial number is
equal to the the ('Peer-Serial-Number' + 1), the endpoint should". There is
a duplicated "the", and, I perfectly know that "('Peer-Serial-Number' + 1)"
means the next value, but since 'Peer-Serial-Number' is cyclic, maybe it
would be worthy somehow noting it.

	- Section 4.2, V2): "..., parameter type 8 as defined in in the..."
should be "..., parameter type 8 as defined in the..."

	- Section 4.2, V2): "Note: a postive response..." should be "Note: A
positive response..."

	- Section 4.2, V3): "..., from the TLV the TLV being responded
to,..." should be "..., from the TLV being responded to,..."

	- Section 4.2, C5): "In both cases C2:V5 and C3:X3 the..." I guess
should be "In both cases C2:V4 and C3:X3 the..."

	Thanks!

	BR Iván Arias Rodríguez