RE: draft-ietf-rmt-fec-bb-revised-01 WG Last-Call

Hi,
Here are some minor editorial corrections to this draft.

Editorial corrections:

Section-1
Old:	1.  CDPs can be designed to operate with a range of different FEC codes/scheme, 
New:	1.  CDPs can be designed to operate with a range of different FEC codes/schemes, 

Section-4
Old:	FEC codes are a valuable basic component of any CDP
New:	FEC code is a valuable basic component of any CDP

Section 6.1
A value for the FEC Encoding ID MUST be reserved and associated with the types, semantics and encoding format of the FEC Payload ID and the the FEC Object Transmission Information.
The party that owns this tuple MUST be able to provide information on how to obtain the the Under-Specified FEC scheme instance

Please remove "the the" repetition in both sentences.

Section-6.2
Old:	1.  A means to reliably communicated the Common FEC Object Transmission Information 
New:	1.  A means to reliably communicate the Common FEC Object Transmission Information  

Thank you,

Ramakrishna Vedantham
Nokia Research Center

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nokia                 		| Phone +1-972-374-1922
6000 Connection Dr,           | Fax   +1-972-894-5937
Irving, TX 75039, USA		| mailto: [email protected]
www.nokia.com/openness
----------------------------------------------------------------------





-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of ext
Lorenzo Vicisano
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 1:36 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rmt] draft-ietf-rmt-fec-bb-revised-01 WG Last-Call


Correcting my own typo: the deadline is Monday September 26th,
not 27th.

	thank you,
	Lorenzo


On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 11:14:36PM -0700, Lorenzo Vicisano wrote:
> Please be advised that this email starts RMT working group
> last-call for draft-ietf-rmt-fec-bb-revised-01.
> 
> Please provide your comments by Monday September 27th, if
> any.
> 
> Additional notes:
> 
> draft-ietf-rmt-fec-bb-revised-01 is a revision of RFC 3452, FEC
> Building Block, intended to obsolete RFC 3452 and to move the FEC BB to
> the Standard Track category. Please note that, although this building
> block specification might not be fully backward compatible with RFC
> 3452, the overall revision process of RMT Experimental RFCs strives to
> produce backward-compatible protocol instantiations.
> 
> 	thank you,
> 	Lorenzo Vicisano
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Rmt mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmt

_______________________________________________
Rmt mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmt