The IP over ATM Mailing List Archive by date

["Timothy J. Smith" <tjsmith@vnet.ibm.com>]

Hi Jim,

>   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 elemets
>   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 ?

Just a couple.  It would appear that these comments apply mostly
to document style.  I guess I would like to see the broad brush
strokes early in the process, and the fine brush strokes at the
end.  Why not list out the specific passages that are
causing confusion along with specific corrections?

Just for clarification, could you help me understand item 3. Are
you saying that an end-station behaves differently depending on
whether an MCS or a mesh is used?  I was under the impression that
end stations were oblivious to the fact.

Now its time for a plug :-).  I would be very grateful for any
brush strokes (large or small) pertaining to
<draft-smith-ipatm-bcast-01.txt>
which is based on the MARS architecture.

Thanks.
TJS