Re: [Isms] tsm pre11 - minor issues

[Dave Shield <D.T.Shield at liverpool.ac.uk>]

2009/1/23 Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder at jacobs-university.de>:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 03:43:47PM -0500, David Harrington wrote:
>
>> I think I have covered all the WGLC comments
>
> Can the WG members please review the changes?

A few minor nits which seem to be still present:

Section 4.2
   Step 1) explains the presence of a securityStateReference as
   being "(Response or Report message)"

   Step 2)  simply states that no securityStateReference is present.
   It would probably be worth indicating the context here too.

   s/no securityStateReference/no securityStateReference (Request message)/


Section 4.2, step 2)
   Add a comma into the list of assignments to tmStateReference cache fields.

   s/transportDomain tmTransportAddress/transportDomain, tmTransportAddress/


Section 5.2
   Step 3) includes a (single) substep numbering "a."
   The equivalent text in section 4.2 has no such numbering.

   s/a./  /


Dave