[manet] Review of draft-ietf-manet-dlep-radio-quality-01

Issues
------

Section 3, last paragraph, first sentence: Mandatory requirement
should be stated using RFC 2199 keywords such as "When using the Radio
Quality extension, the Biterror Rate data item MUST be included."
(Alternatively, you could leave this wording as is and put the "MUST"
in Section 3.1.)

Section 3.1: It seems to me that most of the range of the Biterror
byte is useless as it represents astronomically tiny error rates.
Shouldn't it be scaled? Maybe the decimal point should be in the
middle so that N means one bit error in 10**(N/16) (or maybe 10** (1 +
N/16) ) or something like that. (255 being a special value is fine.)

Section 3.2, first sentence: Seems wrong. The data item does not seem
to talk about "which signal".

Section 3.2: I don't understand the explanation for "I" below Figure
2. The SINR acronym needs to be clearly expanded somewhere in the
document.

Section 3.3, first sentence: "contains information which absolute" ->
"contains information about which absolute" or "contains information
on which absolute"

Section 3.4, first sentence: same problem as in Section 3.3.

Section 5: "two" -> "five"
"Both assignments" -> "These assignments"

Section 5: The document uses "TBD" throughout for all five of the code
points IANA is to assign. These should be replaced with something like
TBD1, TBD2, TBD3, TBD4, and TBD5 so that it is completely unambiguous
which table entry in Section 5 goes with which code point in the rest
of the document.

Section 5.2 heading: "Value" -> "Values"

Nits
----

Section 1.:, Requirements language boilerplate is out of date and must
be updated. See RFC 8174.

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
 [email protected]

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]