AD comments on draft-ietf-fax-gateway-protocol-06.txt and draft-ietf-fax-gateway-options-04.txt

My notes indicate I asked for a last call on these back in November, but it
appears to have gotten lost (quite probably my fault).

I'm actually glad this happened, however, since it gave me a chance to review
this again. And I have number of things that need to be fixed.

Comments on  draft-ietf-fax-gateway-protocol-06.txt

First the easy stuff; all formatting nits of one sort or another:

The last two paragraphs of the Abstract need to be pulled out into separate
sections, e.g. "Requirements notation" and "Notice of Intellectual Property
Claims". These should appear after the introduction.

There appear to be a large number of blank lines separating paragraphs missing
throughout the document:

  Between lines 4-5 of the Abstract
  Between lines 3-4 and 8-9 of Introduction
  Between lines 2-3, 5-6, and 8-9 of section 2
  Between lines 4-5 of section 3.1
  Between lines 4-5 of section 4.1
  Between lines 2-3 of section 4.2.1
  Between the last couple of lines of section 4.2.1
  Between lines 4-5 of section 4.2.2
  Between lines 3-4 and 5-6 of section 4.2.3
  Between lines 3-4, 5-6 of section 4.3
  Between lines 3-4, 7-8 of section 5

Some of these may actually need to be merged into a single paragraph.
Regardless, the formatting is halfway between separate paragraphs and single
paragraphs now, and that's wrong.

The references in this document need to be separated into normative and
informative groups, per recent RFC Editor requirements.

And now for the major item. The security considerations section ends with:

  Further security considerations are introduced by this document, but
  they will be described in this section prior to pulication as an RFC.
   
It is obvious this is problematic, and why. Please fix.

Comments on draft-ietf-fax-gateway-options-04.txt

This document uses RFC 2119 requirements notation even though it is only
informational. In some cases this is OK, however, in this case I find the use
of requirements notation in the context of a list of independent optional
capabilities quite confusing. I therefore suggest that the reference to RFC
2119 be dropped and the use of capitalized words removed.

This document has the same problem with the abstract that the previous
gateway document did -- the IPR notice needs to be moved to a section of its
own after the introduction.

There is a similar lack of appropriate paragraph breaks in this document. This
time it happens in section 1, section 2.5, section 2.6, and section 4. Some
merging of paragraphs may be even more appropriate here instead of having all
the isolated sentences.

The first paragraph of section 2.1 doesn't make sense and needs to be reworded.
Unfortunately I cannot suggest alternative words since I'm not clear on what it
actually should say. There are various other grammar, but none so serious as
this.

				Ned