Hi Suresh, Dhananjay has an updated draft, he will post it this week.
Regards Sri On 1/27/17, 11:10 AM, "Suresh Krishnan" <[email protected]> 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)" ><[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > Date: Wednesday, 21 December 2016 at 11:51 PM > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, >"[email protected]" ><[email protected]> > Subject: Review of draft-ietf-dmm-lma-controlled-mag-params-02 > Resent-From: <[email protected]> > Resent-To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, ><[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, ><[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, ><[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Dapeng Liu ><[email protected]>, <[email protected]> > 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 > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-dir > > _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
