• Type: Improvement
    • Status: Closed
    • Priority: Minor
    • Resolution: Fixed
    • Affects Version/s: 3.1.1
    • Fix Version/s: None
    • Component/s: edits
    • Labels:


      (line numbers as in WD20)
      19. Title of the Cyber security framework needs updating. I'm not sure what the correct title is.

      50. Status section seems to use PRD rather than WD wording

      79. Copyright statement should be changed to 2014

      268. Second sentence in the definition of Session talks about spanning multiple connections, which could be interpreted as multiple concurrent connections. I think it would help if we clarified the sentence as follows "Some Sessions last only as long as the Network Connection, others can span multiple consecutive Network Connections between a Client and a Server"

      279, 284, 348, 363. Author's initial is followed by ., which looks odd. Is this a requirement of the syntax used in RFC citations?

      392. Font size for [RFC3629] is too small

      402. Change title of the figure to "Structure of UTF-8 encoded strings". Also the figure mentions "String byte length" twice. I don't think you need the word "byte" in there, as it reads a little oddly, and we already mentioned that it's a count of bytes in line 396

      407/410. "network connection" should be "Network Connection"

      409. Would be better to say "A UTF-8 encoded string" rather than "The UTF-8 encoded string" as that makes the sentence more understandable when read out of context

      431. Figure 1.2 bytes 1 and 2 should be "String Length" not "Message Length"

      435/437. Figure 2.1 has the title "Headers in an MQTT control packet" but it includes a payload as well as headers. I suggest renaming it to "Structure of an MQTT Control Packet

      444. This section is primarily about the 4-bit Control Packet type field, so I suggest calling it "MQTT Control Packet type" rather than "MQTT Control Packet types"

      484. This says "See Section 2.3.1" at the end of a discussion of Dup flag, but that section doesn't mention the Dup flag. I suggest replacing it with "See section 2.3.1 for more information about Packet Identifiers" or "Packet Identifiers are discussed in Section 2.3.1"

      488. Unnecessary "the"

      496. This starts off saying "If the retain flag is.." but every other place I spotted refers to it as the RETAIN flag. We should be consistent (though I am puzzled why we spell it RETAIN, whereas the other flag is Dup)

      606. Add the word "or" i.e. "A PUBACK, PUBREC or PUBREL packet.."

      630. I don't think you should say "Not required" in Table 2.6. It makes it sound as if you can include it if you want to (i.e. optional) whereas in fact it is illegal to include a payload. I suggest using "None"




            • Assignee:
              ragupta2 Rahul Gupta
              PeterNiblett Peter Niblett
            • Watchers:
              2 Start watching this issue


              • Created: