Subject: [rohc] Comments on draft-ietf-rohc-sigcomp-impl-guide-07.txt

From: "Lars-Erik Jonsson \(LU/EAB\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 15:34:06 +0200

Abbie,

I've read the draft, and I think you better make another update
before the WGLC, then we reduce the amount of comments during
WGLC. So, please fix the ID-nits as pointed out before. Further,
I have a couple of comments, as follows:

* References to sections internally vs. references to sections
  in RFC 3320/3321 are not clearly separated. At several places
  you just write "section X.Y.Z", but actually refer to 3320.
  Please rewrite this. Did you see last weeks discussion about
  the ROHC implementer's guide? Maybe you should adopt the same
  approach. I do not care which way you go, but find something
  that makes the section references clear.

* I suggest we go for Proposed Standard with this document, not
  Informational. The reason is that this document actually do
  state necessary technical matters that are essential when
  implementing 3320, and a search for 3320 should give a pointer
  to this document, saying that it "UPDATES RFC 3320".
  So, I suggest you add to the front page, as I have done in
  the ROHC implementer's guide, "TO UPDATE: RFC 3320".
  Are there any opinions against this??  

* Remove the last sentence from the abstract; "This information
  can be found in a separate document". One may also question
  the relevance of the sentence before, but I leave that up
  to you to judge. =)

* Add a section, maybe 1.1, with terminology, i.e. the standard
  text to reference RFC 2119.

* Fourth paragraph of 3.1, add "a", i.e. "...remaining bytes of
  a message..."

* I am not able to parse the last sentence of (the second
  paragraph of) section 3.3, the part "...or that is not..."

* In section 4.1, I think you should add some "," in the
  third, fourth (maybe two places), and fifth paragraphs.

* In section 5.2, add an empty line before the indented text,
  and a "," before "but each compartment should...".

* In section 10.3.2, you reference 3GPP, which is undefined.
  Maybe we should say "...SigComp for SIP [5], or in
  specifications from other standards organisations making
  use of SigComp.

* In acknowledgements, please just list the people, remove
  their e-mail addresses, we already know some are outdated,
  and we do not usually publish RFC's with addresses to
  other people than the document authors.

* References, split them into Normative and Informative, 
  I guess 3320 and 2119 are the only Normative references.

* Reference [3] should be to RFC 4077.

* For reference [5], please refer to the current draft, it
  will be replaced with an RFC number if that document gets
  ready prior to the publication of this document.

/L-E

_______________________________________________
Rohc mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc

---

From: "Surtees, Abigail" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 12:09:59 +0100

Hi Lars-Erik, all,

I've just submitted an updated version of the implementer's guide - now
version 08.  It's also available in the usual place:
<http://sigcomp.srmr.co.uk/~ahs/draft-ietf-rohc-sigcomp-impl-guide-08.tx
t>

I've made the updates according to your comments here and also from the
ID-nit checker.  I haven't been able to check it again as the
nit-checker appears to be off-line; however, I hope it's ok.

A couple of things from the nit checker were:

"  - Missing Reference: '0xFFFF' is mentioned on line 236, but not
defined"
However this is not a reference;
"  - Missing Reference: 'SM1' is mentioned on line 388, but not defined"
This is also not a reference;

and

"  - Line 745 has weird spacing: '..._length  pad (...'"
The spacing should be like this.

Best regards,

Abbie 

> 
> I've read the draft, and I think you better make another 
> update before the WGLC, then we reduce the amount of comments 
> during WGLC. So, please fix the ID-nits as pointed out 
> before. Further, I have a couple of comments, as follows:
> 

Done with RFC3320-x.y

>   Are there any opinions against this??  

There was no response so I've done this

>   the relevance of the sentence before, but I leave that up
done
>   text to reference RFC 2119.
done 
> * Fourth paragraph of 3.1, add "a", i.e. "...remaining bytes of
done
>   paragraph of) section 3.3, the part "...or that is not..."
done
>   third, fourth (maybe two places), and fifth paragraphs.
Done

>   and a "," before "but each compartment should...".
Done

>   specifications from other standards organisations making
done 
>   I guess 3320 and 2119 are the only Normative references.
done
> * Reference [3] should be to RFC 4077.

done
>   ready prior to the publication of this document.
done