Draft:  draft-ietf-rddp-sctp-07
Reviewer: Gray, Eric [Eric.Gray@marconi.com]
Review Date: Tuesday 9/26/2006 4:27 PM CST
IESG Telechat Date: 10/12/2006

Summary: Ready with nit.

Comment/nit:
============

I just had a fresh look at the -07 version of this draft and
I felt that all of my commments were addressed.  However, in
one case the fix actually makes it harder to read.

I had pointed out that MPA was not expanded anywhere in the
draft.  Caitlin had suggested that a reference could be added.

This is what happened, however the reference replaces the one
instance of the word - so it is not immediately clear what the 
reference refers to.  The new text reads:

"DDP Segments are as defined in [I-D.ietf-rddp-ddp].  The DDP Segment
 Chunk serves the same purpose as the [I-D.ietf-rddp-mpa] Upper Layer
 PDU (MULPDU) in that it carries DDP Segments over a reliable protocol
 with added sequencing information."

The problem is that - by replacing the acronym MPA with the 
reference [I-D.ietf-rddp-mpa], it is not immediately obvious
what the 'M' in "MULPU" stands for (until and unless you are
able to pick up on the fact that this reference defines MPA).

I suggest adding "MPA" back in - along the lines of:

"... the MPA [I-D.ietf-rddp-mpa] Upper Layer PDU (MULPDU) ..."

This seems awkward (it might have better to add MPA to the
list of acronyms, defined in section 2, and inserted the 
reference there), but it takes a bit less thought to follow 
this way.

Chances are this could be handled as a note to the RFC Editor.