CommentID~CommenterName~CommenterEmail~CommenterPhone~CommenterFax~CommenterCo~Clause~Subclause~Page~Line~CommentType~Comment~SuggestedRemedy~Response~CommentStatus~ResponseStatus
0~Skellern, David~skellern@cisco.com~+1 408 527 0776~+61 409 468 404~Cisco Systems~01~1.1~2~7~E~The Editor's note says 2 Mbit/s is not included, yet there are simulatiosn for this rate and the document seems to apply to 2 Mbit/s.~Remove editor's note.~~X~O
0~Skellern, David~skellern@cisco.com~+1 408 527 0776~+61 409 468 404~Cisco Systems~04~4.1.3~7~49~E~"Both" should not be repeated~remove second both~~X~O
0~Skellern, David~skellern@cisco.com~+1 408 527 0776~+61 409 468 404~Cisco Systems~04~4.~6~4~E~repeated period~delete one period~~X~O
0~Skellern, David~skellern@cisco.com~+1 408 527 0776~+61 409 468 404~Cisco Systems~04~4.2~8~26~E~The text lists three models (RF, MAC, PHY) and says 'developed in OPNET and ANSI C, respectively".  I can't parse this sentence.~Delete 'respectively'.  It doesn't apply and, anyway, there is clarification in the next paragraph.~~X~O
0~Skellern, David~skellern@cisco.com~+1 408 527 0776~+61 409 468 404~Cisco Systems~04~4.3.2~9~3233~E~The structure and language confuse me.  Why has it been decided that there are three coexistence mechanisms?  Surely we have two in Non-collaborative (AFH and APSS) and two (SCO over ACL priority and TDMA) in Collaborative.  How is it that we describe these as 3? ~Change the language and structure to acknowledge 4 mechansims.~~X~O
0~Skellern, David~skellern@cisco.com~+1 408 527 0776~+61 409 468 404~Cisco Systems~00~multiple~~~E~The long dash at the end of every figure or table reference is non-standard, annoying and seems to serve no useful purpose.~Appropriately remove all dashes in references~~X~O
0~Skellern, David~skellern@cisco.com~+1 408 527 0776~+61 409 468 404~Cisco Systems~05~Table 3~13~21~E~Should there be an entry in the bottom right of the table?? or does the same value apply to both column 3 and other?~Clarify~~X~O
