Hi Christer,
[trimming]
On 3/27/17 7:42 PM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
Hi Paul,
Thanks for your review! Please see inline.
(1) Nit:
Regarding the following in section 5.1:
When an offerer or answerer indicates that it wants to establish a
new DTLS association, it needs to make sure that media packets in the
existing DTLS association and new DTLS association can be de-
multiplexed.
This text presumes there is an existing association. To explicitly cover the
case where there is not, I suggest the following:
When an offerer or answerer indicates that it wants to establish a
new DTLS association to replace an existing association, it needs to
ensure that media packets in the existing DTLS association and new
DTLS association can be de-multiplexed.
I could do that. Or, I could use say "make sure that media packets in *any* existing
DTLS association"
That would also be fine. I have no preference.
(3) Minor:
I concur with the comments in the ops-dir review by Carlos Pignataro regarding
the formatting of
section 9. He didn't suggest a fix. Perhaps some special marker (e.g. "|" or "<" and
">") can be placed
in every line to indicate it is test from or for another document - either at
the beginning or end of every line.
I have never seen that been used before - not in documents I have authored, or
in documents written by others.
Yes, I know. I was just trying to be constructive by suggesting
*something*. My first thought was to indent. But that would require
reflowing all the text to avoid exceeding line length. That seemed like
a bad idea.
I'm not attached to this solution. I've complained about the same
problem in other drafts, but nobody came up with a solution so they
didn't get resolved. Here I'm not the only one who sees a problem, so
maybe it is worth trying to find a solution.
Thanks,
Paul
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
