Subject: [Tsvwg] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpimpguide-02.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 06:19:19 -0500

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Transport Area Working Group Working Group of the IETF.

	Title		: SCTP Implementors Guide
	Author(s)	: R. Stewart, L. Ong, I. Rodriguez, K. Poon
	Filename	: draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpimpguide-02.txt
	Pages		: 29
	Date		: 21-Nov-01
	
This document contains a compilation of all defects found up until
June 2001 for the Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)
[RFC2960]. These defects may be of an editorial or technical nature.
This document may be thought of as a companion document to be
used in the implementation of SCTP to clearify errors in the
original SCTP document.
This document updates RFC2960 and text within this document
supersedes the text found in RFC2960

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpimpguide-02.txt

To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to 
ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username
"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
type "cd internet-drafts" and then
	"get draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpimpguide-02.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.

Send a message to:
	[email-masked].
In the body type:
	"FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpimpguide-02.txt".
	
NOTE:	The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
	MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility.  To use this
	feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
	command.  To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
	a MIME-compliant mail reader.  Different MIME-compliant mail readers
	exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
	"multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
	up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
	how to manipulate these messages.

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

---

From: David Lehmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 10:47:01 -0500

Some typos:

In "New text: (Section 7.2.4)", there are two "5)" paragraphs.

In "New text: (Section 8.3)", there is a reference to "COOKIE-SENT".
I think that should be "COOKIE-ECHOED".

-David

---

From: David Lehmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 14:50:47 -0500

One more possible typo: Should "segments" in "M1)" be "chunks"?

-David

---

From: David Lehmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 16:13:30 -0500

The word "clearification" does not exist.

-David

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 21:56:20 +0000 (GMT)

> The word "clearification" does not exist.

which is why there are more than a hundred results for it in
google:
http://www.google.com/search?q=clearification

while altavista says:
The number of words that match your search terms: clearification 1086
clarification 804865
which indicates that roughly 0.13% of all clarification users swear by
it.

and of course, if it does not exist, you could not have written a
sentence using it, much less say that it is a word. I think pages 137
through 482 of "Goedel, Escher, Bach" cover this sort of thorny
problem in tedious detail.

(such minor nits are best sent straight to the authors.)

this sentence is false.

L.

so dictionaries prescribe language use and at the same time document
language as it is used? Isn't that, like, a paradox?
the quantum observer-affecting-experiment problem gets everywhere...

<[email-masked]>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>

_______________________________________________
tsvwg mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg

---

From: David Lehmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 09:02:23 -0500

> http://www.google.com/search?q=clearification

Common mistakes are still mistakes.

(I looked at google.  All the documents, that I saw,
were Usenet posts, which generally do not provide
model language for professional documents.)

> (such minor nits are best sent straight to the authors.)

I thought of that.  However, either way the authors get one
copy of my comments and it may spare the authors from receiving
the same comments from many others.  In addition, it gives
persons, like yourself, a chance to express minor nits about my
minor nit.

> this sentence is false.

I disagree.  Nonetheless, the authors are free to
agree with you.

If you wish to continue with this conversation (I don't),
please send it to my email address.

-David

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 14:30:12 +0000 (GMT)

> Common mistakes are still mistakes.

you didn't say it was a mistake. you said it didn't exist...

> persons, like yourself, a chance to express minor nits about my

for technical or substantive nits related to what the draft is
actually discussing, that is a sensible argument; get a second
technical opinion on correct wording or description. A number of
people I know split their comments into two groups according to
severity/usefulness or wider discussion, and send the minor editing
set privately, the technical/subject stuff on the list.

> I disagree.

note that I didn't say '_that_ sentence is false'.

> please send it to my email address.

and _now_ you think of sparing the list! my point is made, I think.

L.

who has been known to send pages and pages of typo/grammar nits to
authors.