RObust Header Compression (ROHC): A Link-Layer Assisted Profile for IP/UDP/RTP
draft-ietf-rohc-rfc3242bis-01

[Ballot comment]
!! Missing Reference for citation: [2]
  P010 L012:    classified as INFERRED in [2], when attempting to verify a 3- or 7-

!! Missing Reference for citation: [MOMUC01]
  P004 L006:    excellently, as shown for WCDMA [MOMUC01].  However, for deployment

!! Missing Reference for citation: [VTC2000]
  P003 L045:    existing one-service circuit switched solutions [VTC2000].  However,

IANA Last Call Comments:
We understand this document to have NO NEW IANA Actions.
Should the reference for the registered parameter be changed from RFC3242 to this document after approval?
IANA needs confirmation.

The AD Review comment discussion continued in emails thereafter;
Here were the additional points:

The Section called Differences from RFC 3242 should
in particular explains enough about the bug for one to get clear
why this reissuing was strongly motivated.
Basically, it should have info on this:

http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rohc/current/msg02580.html


Since this is the -bis,  the document should remove
the references that state this is a new profile,
and tone down some of the language that markets the need
for this versus the standard profile (the latter appear in
a number of places, the marketing is heavy in the Intro).
In not every case is "new" the wrong word.  It is OK in
4.1, for instance, though you could substitute "It defines
three packet types distinct from " since this document does
not define them.

For readability, make sure the terminology section is pointed to
from sections that use terms and acronyms before it.

AD Review comment:  the specific bug for which this was
written needs to be described in a section "Differences
from RFC 3242", rather than just saying there was a bug.

Section 3: s/ROCH/ROHC/

To be continued...