Document: draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-11.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 2010-03-16
IETF LC End Date: 2010-03-19
IESG Telechat date: unknown

Summary: Ready

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments:
 - Title: I note the title uses the term Neighborhood so should avoid
  too much confusion with IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Protocol (thanks!).

 - Abstract page 2: a 1-hop -> an 1-hop??

 - ToC page 23: Bases -> Base? (for consistency)

 - ToC page 4: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments

 - 2 page 7: Network Address  An address -> Network Address  - An address

 - 4.3.2 page 16 (and *many* other places): i.e. -> i.e.,

 - 9 page 27: may -> MAY and must -> MUST?

 - 9 page 27: the the -> the

 - 10 page 32: [RFC5444] -> [RFC5444])

 - 11 page 34: (another) a 1-hop -> an 1-hop

 - 12 page 36 (twice): the message need not have??

 - 12.1 page 37: my dict doesn't know "unverifiable"
 (note there is another occurrence of this word)

 - 12.3 page 39: IMHO '-' is not a good character to introduce a list item
  (I really prefer * or +)

 - 12.5 page 41, 12.6 pages 42 43, 13.2 page 45: same concern

 - 14.4 page 48: acknowledgement -> acknowledgement? (consistency)

 - 16 page 51: e.g. -> e.g.,

 - 17.1 page 54: ; -> . (at end of list items, for consistency)

 - 20 page 58: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments

 - B page 60: ALWAYS -> *always* (to avoid confusion with 2119 KEYWORDS)

 - C pages 64 and 65: packet details are unreadable (I prefer the name
  and value of fields)

 - C page 64: IMHO the (whole) packet length is wrong (45 = 0b101101,
  0b110001 = 49)

 - F.3 and all, pages 77 and all:
  the alternative ASCII art is very ugly:

                        _.---{3}
       {1}--------{2}--<_
                         '---{4}

  I suggest something like:

                       +-----{3}
       {1}--------{2}--+
                       +-----{4}

 - F.6 and all, page 78 and all:
  the circle is even worse! I suggest a box which is far easier
  (BTW in tis case circling -> boxing :-)

 - F.10 page 82: are the pairings 9+10 and 11+12 an artefact of
 the ASCII art or have they an intended meaning?