[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
AD evaluation of: draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-russian-04.txt
- To: "Tewg (E-mail)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: AD evaluation of: draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-russian-04.txt
- From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:15:37 +0100
Here are my review comments
More or less serious:
- I believe that not the base protocol document should request
assignment of a BC Model ID, but instead this document should
- the IPR section is NOT inline with sect 10 of RFC2026.
What needs to happen is that we get a proper IPR section, and
Cisco needs to send an IPR claim/statement to the IETF
- tell RFC-editor to remove the section about SUB-IP related
information. Or better remove it in next revision.
- sect 1, 2nd para, last sentence
add the word "models" at the end of the sentence?
- If we decide that this doc requests assignment of BC Model ID
(which is my preference) then we need an IANA Considerations
- Try to be consistent with the base protocol spec in that you use the
same capitalization/spelling for "Bandwidth Contraints Model".
There are possibly other such strings/prhases as well that could
benefit from more consistency.