Dear Carlos and co-authors, all,
thanks for the improvements!
I think the draft is quite well written and provides a good approach to real 
distribution of functionalities in DMM. What might be made clearer is the 
difference between partially and fully DMM you have introduced.
See also as mentioned below in the list of detected nits:

Figs. 2 - 4: exhibiting ? instead of ' on Data packet Flow part ...

p. 5: Home-CPA [I assume it means the same as H-CPA defined in ch. 2: I suggest 
to use one acronym only].
PMIPv6 DMM extenstions => PMIPv6 DMM extensions
the entities that participates => the entities that participate
p. 8: Also, the CMD send a PBA => Also, the CMD sends a PBA
p.10: This procedure reflect => This procedure reflects
address OS taken  => address is taken [??]
p.12: Partial DMM architecture - I wonder whether this should be introduced as 
new term in ch. 2 e.g.

Partial DMM architecture. DMM architecture based on PMIP where MAGs and LMAs 
are distributed in Data Plane but Control Plane of LMA is centralized in CMD 
[if I understood correctly]
Further more when fully DMM solutions are mentioned (later) - is that the 
(only) difference? Should one describe that in more detail?
 
of the mobile selecting => of the mobile node selecting
p.13: HSS [why not using 3GPP-independent term CMD here?] - same on p.15 ...
p.15: mn1dgw2/mn1dgw1 [not used in Fig.6, shouldn't it say mn1mar2/mn1mar1 
instead?]
the serving MAAR (MAAR1) => the serving MAAR (MAAR2) [right? Since MAAR2 is the 
actual S-MAAR of MN1 in Fig. 6]
consider by 3GPP => considered by 3GPP
p.20: This field MUST be set to 34.=> This field MUST be set to 33.[according 
to format above unless an 8-bit Reserved field is included as in other formats 
...]
p.23: on the serving distributed gateway => on the S-MAAR [another left-over by 
previous version ...] 
p.25: we describe =>  we describe
p.27: ot the operators => of the operators
both solution apply the same signalling scheme => meaning full and partial or 
rather operation of the solution in both (of mentioned multiple) domains here?
p.28: then stop the BCE => then stops the BCE
p.30: mobile edge computing (MEC) =>  multi-access edge computing (MEC) [as 
defined by ETSI which is explicitly mentioned!]
edge ir the => edge or the [edge near the?]

Thanks and best regards
Dirk
-----Original Message-----
From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
Sent: Dienstag, 6. März 2018 23:18
To: dmm@ietf.org
Subject: [DMM] [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-bernardos-dmm-pmipv6-dlif-01.txt]

Hi,

We have submitted a revised version of our draft addressing the comments we got 
in Singapore:

- Added some statements about which model from draft-ietf-dmm- 
deployment-models our solution follows (addressing a comment received from Sri).
- Added some text relating to draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility (addressing a 
comment received from Danny).

Additionally, we added some terminology from draft-ietf-dmm-deployment- models 
and other minor changes.

In Singapore we got quite good support of the document. I'd like to request 
feedback/reviews from the WG.

Thanks!

Carlos
_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
dmm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm

Reply via email to