Document: draft-ietf-avt-rfc2833bisdata-06.txt Reviewer: Michael A. Patton [MAP@MAP-NE.com] Review Date: Wednesday 5/24/2006 7:03 AM CST IESG Telechat Date: Thursday, 25 May 2006 Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be fixed before publication. The two nits are very minor and should not slow down approval, but if they can be addressed as others are, that would be an improvement in this document. Minor comments -------------- Should be a note to RFC Editor about references to RFC xxxx. These are all references to [4] which is an ID to be simultaneously released as an RFC. However, (as noted below) not all are marked. I note in the table in 2.7.1 there's no allowance for some combinations, which I know I've used in the past and have equipment in my home to generate, specifically B103 at 110. It may just be that none of these combinations are actually in use any more (I certainly don't use them, I just collect 1970's era computer equipment :-), but are you really sure? Wouldn't it make sense to just define a complete orthogonal set? To the best of my knowledge both B103 and V21 were used at both 110 and 300 in full duplex applications, and as far as I know may still be at some location. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The following editorial issues are noted for the convenience of possible copy editors but are not part of the technical review. Clarity ------- Reference 4 has old version number...to be fixed when it's an RFC anyway. Typos ----- In Section 1.2, paragraph starting "The problem comes..." has mismatched parenthesis. Probably a close after [5] was dropped. In that same paragraph "renabled" => "re-enabled". In 2.5 bullet item b, the break at the space between "1" and "s" could cause some confusion. This suggests that all number space "s" sequences should probably mark the space as non-breaking. In Section 2.7.1 there is a reference to RFC xxxx without a [4], but I'm pretty sure that's what was meant.