Re: END of WGLC draft-ietf-ipdvb-ule-04.txt

[Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>]

Thanks Carsten!!!!!

Carsten Bormann wrote:

> I apologize for being late with reviewing this draft.

That was just in time:-)

> I have a couple (63, to be precise) editorial comments that I have sent 
> to the authors.
> No big problems in here, but some language that the authors may or may 
> not want to improve (and some minor contradictions that have an obvious 
> resolution).
> I'll leave it to the discretion of the authors how to use these comments.
Detailed reviews by others are always most useful. The authors will work 
through the NiTs and minor issues. I'll make sure any difficult/ambiguos 
issues are brought back to this list.

> One question though: Why is it that ethertype frames can be sent without 
> MAC but length (LLC) frames can't?

Yes we should talk about this on the list. I've made a separate thread on LLC

<SNIP of LLC question>

> Oh, and I'm a bit confused about the IANA policies (why do the specs 
> only have to define name, value, need, and intent? Wouldn't semantics be 
> nice?).

Yes, indeed you shouldn't be confused - the Specifications of ExtensionHeaders 
MUST also DEFINE the symantics/procedures to be used for the extensions. This 
should be made clear in the next draft!

> Gruesse, Carsten