Document: draft-ietf-rohc-rfc3095bis-framework-03.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont 
Review Date: 2006-11-26
IETF LC End Date: 2006-11-28

Summary: Ready 

Comments: almost all the comments are about wording...

-First comment is an exception, it is technical: 4.4 page 11 doesn't
metion that ROHC has the capability to work without a feedback channel,
i.e., on simplex/one-way links. As it is both an unique and important
in some cases capability IMHO it should be mentioned somewhere...

-The second exception is the TCP profile in 6 page 32 which is not yet
an RFC, so the RFC editor could have to wait for it and update the
document (it is not an issue but RFC editor should be warned).

-There are many cases of "i.e." and "e.g." not folloed by a comma,
2.2 page 5 (2), 3.1 page 7, 4.4 pagee 11 (3), 12 (4), 4.6 page 13,
5 page 13, 5.2.5 page 235.3.1.4 page 26, 6 page 30.

-In 2.1 page 4 (NACK): Acknowledgement -> Acknowledgment

-There is a spurious ";" after "fields" at the beginning of 3.1 page 7.

-In 3.2 page 7: acknowledgements -> acknowledgments

-In 4.3 page 10: "extendable" is not a valid English word?

-In 4.3 page 10, "feeback from implementers have also" -> has?

-In 4.4 page 11 there are two "make it possible" which IMHO should be
"make possible".

-In 4.4 at the top of page 12: their definition assume -> definitions.

-In 4.5 page 12: and it then -> and then.

-In 5.1.1 page 14: one another need not even have CID spaces -> to have
CID space

-In 5.2.4.1 last line of page 21: acknowledgement -> acknowledgment.

-In 6 page 30: fields, or ... types, updates -> update (without the comma?)