The IP over ATM Mailing List Archive by date

[james@newbridge.com (James Watt)]

Tim:
   I'd like to see this document get out too.  I agree that continual 
improvement is not a good use of time.  However, I would also like to
make sure the document we turn into an RFC is easy for everyone,
especially those new to the field, to implement correctly.

I have a few "broad brush" suggestions along these lines.  Of course,
having made them I feel obliged to offer to help to implement them.

1) I would like to see the use of the passive voice eliminated, at
   least in the specification part of the document.  A number of 
   requests for clarification seem to relate to the use of the passive
   voice.

2) I would like us to take Grenville's emphasis on the header and elements
   of procedure even further and pull all "common header" processing
   into a single section.

3) I would like to see us make an attempt to reduce the distinction
   (implied or inferred !!) between the mesh and server cases.  We need
   to ensure the end-station behaviour is as simple to understand as we
   can make it.

Comments ?
-james

____________________________________________________________________________
James W. Watt,     james@newbridge.com                   Ph: +1 613 591-3600
Newbridge Networks 600 March Rd Kanata ON Canada K2K 2E6 FAX:+1 613 591-3680