> On Aug 17, 2016, at 6:26 PM, Ben Campbell <b...@nostrum.com> wrote: > >> Back to the current document: I have reread s3 of RFC 7206 and there are >> some points that need to be sorted out: >> >> - The term 'end-to-end' is given a slightly specialized meaning in RFC 7206. >> This is presumably carried through to the draft under review, but the need >> to refer to the end-to-end definition is not mentioned in the draft. >> >> - The use of 'session' as a shorthand for the specific meaning of >> 'communication session' defined in RFC 7206 ought to be emphasized within >> the draft since the shorthand in RFC 7206 is technically limited to the RFC >> (ok, this is somewhat nitpicking but easy to misinterpret.) > > I agree with both of the above points. Authors?
These are fair points and can easily be addressed with some additional verbiage in Section 3.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
