Comments on "On the covering radius of codes" [with reply]

The commenters point out that with the definition of the norm of a code as originally given in the above-titled paper (see ibid., vol.IT 31, p.385-401, May 1985), certain results do not hold. However, with the corrected definition given by G.D. Cohen et al. (see ibid., vol.IT 32, p.680-94, Sept. 1986), they do hold. they also point out that the hypotheses of Lemma 27 of the above-titled paper need modification, which they provide. The authors' reply that they were aware of the problems with the definition of norm and thank the commenters for their correction to Lemma 27.<
>