[Issue ] Editorial cmts on Chargeable User Identity

[Greg Weber <gdweber@cisco.com>]

Editorial Comments on Chargeable User Identity (-01)
Submitter name: Greg Weber
Submitter email address: gdweber@cisco.com
Date first submitted: October 12, 2004
Reference: n/a
Document: ChargeIUD-01
Comment type: E
Priority: S
Section: Various
Rationale/Explanation of issue:

I noticed a number of problems while reading this draft.
Correcting these will make the draft a little less likely
to confuse, and in some cases more correct.

.) The References are slightly jumbled. Section 1.1 has
   a reference to [RFC2119] but there is no citation in Section 7.
   Likewise Section 2 refers to [RFC 3588, NASREQ] without a
   citation.
.) Section 7 needs to be split into Informative and Normative
   references.
.) There are a lot of disallowed control characters- all those
   curly quotes and em-dashes.
.) References to RADIUS attribute names are inconsistent, e.g.:
   User-Name(1)
   UserName(1)
   UserName
   UserName (1)
   Likewise for Class and for "Chargeable-User-Identity".
   I'd suggest you make this consistent in the style of 3579/3580.
.) Likewise as above for RADIUS Packet Types, e.g. Access-Request.
.) In Section 2.1, under String, under "02", should that "URL" be
   a "URI"?
.) Does the IANA Considerations Section need to mention setting up
   a registry for the "User-Identity types", e.g. E.164, IMSI?

Proposed Resolution: 
  I think correcting these issues would assist readability.
  Using XML2RFC, as originally suggested in the RADEXT charter
  would help with some of these. :-)

--
to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>