Hi Suresh, Dhananjay has an updated draft, he will post it this week.
Regards Sri On 1/27/17, 11:10 AM, "Suresh Krishnan" <suresh.krish...@ericsson.com> wrote: >Hi Dhananjay/authors, > Any progress on this? I would like to get this moving soon. > >Thanks >Suresh > >On 12/22/16, 4:35 AM, "Int-dir on behalf of Dhananjay Patki (dhpatki)" ><int-dir-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of dhpa...@cisco.com> wrote: > > Hello, > > Thanks for the review. We will address the comments and get back with >a new version of the draft. > -- > Regards, > Dhananjay > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ralph Droms <rdroms.i...@gmail.com> > Date: Wednesday, 21 December 2016 at 11:51 PM > To: "int-...@ietf.org" <int-...@ietf.org> > Cc: "dmm@ietf.org" <dmm@ietf.org>, "i...@ietf.org" <i...@ietf.org>, >"draft-ietf-dmm-lma-controlled-mag-params....@ietf.org" ><draft-ietf-dmm-lma-controlled-mag-params....@ietf.org> > Subject: Review of draft-ietf-dmm-lma-controlled-mag-params-02 > Resent-From: <alias-boun...@ietf.org> > Resent-To: <dhpa...@cisco.com>, <sgund...@cisco.com>, ><jonghy...@smu.ac.kr>, <fuqi...@outlook.com>, <lyle.t.be...@sprint.com>, ><jouni.nos...@gmail.com>, <maxpass...@gmail.com>, ><suresh.krish...@ericsson.com>, <terry.mander...@icann.org>, Dapeng Liu ><max....@alibaba-inc.com>, <max....@alibaba-inc.com> > Resent-Date: Wednesday, 21 December 2016 at 11:51 PM > > Reviewer: Ralph Droms > Review result: Ready with Issues > > Major issues: None > > Minor issues: > > The mechanism described in this document is fairly simple. I > recommend that the specific semantics of the use of the parameter > options should be explained with greater clarity to ensure correct and > interoperable implementations. For example, I found the description > of LMA behavior in section 5.1 to be quite convoluted and confusing. > Putting the "if...then...else" construct in two bullets seemed obtuse. > In the first bullet, the LMA "SHOULD include" the sub-option. Are > there circumstances under which the LMA would not include the > sub-option and, if so, what are those circumstances? Can the LMA > decide, perhaps for efficiency, to return the sub-option in only, say, > one of ten responses to the MAG? > > Is there a specific reason for encoding the LAM Controlled MAG Session > Parameters as sub-options under the LAM-Controlled-MAG-Parameters > option? Will additional sub-options be defined in the future? > > Editorial issues. > > For clarity, the document should use acronyms and names for system > components in a consistent way: use acronyms throughout and expand the > acronym on first use. For example, LMA and "local mobility anchor" > are used interchangeably throughout the document, which this reviewer > found to be distracting. > > What is the expansion for "PBU"? > > The use of the "Configuration Variables" defined in section 4 is > repeated in section 5.1. To avoid internal inconsistency, I recommend > that the use of the variable be described only once, with internal > pointers to that text from other places in the document. > > In section 6, it would help the reader to include the name of the > registry to be modified in the first bullet. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Int-dir mailing list > int-...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-dir > > _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
