Tom,
Thank-you for the nice feedback! Very pleased that all the revs have made it
good.
Will resolve your nits in the next rev
Best wishes
phil
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Taylor [mailto:tom.taylor.s...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 09 March 2015 13:15
> To: Gen Art; Eardley,PL,Philip,TUB8 R;
Thanks!
phil
>
> > OLD
> >
> > o Understanding the quality experienced by customers. Alongside
> > benchmarking competitors, gaining better insight into the user's
> > service through a sample panel of the operator's own customers.
> > The ISP requires a performance viewpoint
Ben, Jari,
thanks for the follow-up, here are some further proposals
phil
> The following are editorial comments from my original review that I think
> need further work:
>> -- 2.1, third bullet, last sentence:
>>
>> The sentence hard to parse. Is the first comma intended?
>
> The sentence need
Ben,
Thanks for your review.
The right status isn't clear-cut (I think), but when we (Chairs & Wes)
discussed it, Info seemed best
* mainly because precedent seems to be that API docs are informational, for
example socket API extensions for SCTP http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6458/
* als
I take your point that ideally there would be an explanation of how to achieve
interoperability and that it would have formats, error codes etc specified. I
guess this would be a rfc3444 Data Model.
Reading your (DH's) latest email, it sounds like you'd need this (rather than
what I thought an
Personally I think it unlikely that the WG would ever complete the former
The latter might be plausible, though having flicked at 3444 i can't tell
exactly what we're missing. It seems to say that an information model is an
absrtact model about relationships between objects and can be defined
i
David,
Thanks for your review & comments.
{ The implementation notes are very useful - the WG should be
{ commended for working through the practical implementation
{ considerations for this functionality up front as opposed to
{ leaving them to implementers to puzzle out.
Thanks!
{ "PCN-excess-r
Francis
thanks very much for your very close review.
On the general point of style (such as british vs american spelling), i found
rfc editor guidance (i forget in which document) that basically said 'you can
do what you like provided you're consistent' - although as you say, expect will
h
