Hi Dirk, Thanks a lot for the feedback. Please see inline below.
On Wed, 2018-03-07 at 12:54 +0000, [email protected] wrote: > 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 ... OK, fixed in -02. > > p. 5: Home-CPA [I assume it means the same as H-CPA defined in ch. 2: > I suggest to use one acronym only]. Agre, fixed. > 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 [??] Thanks, all fixed. > p.12: Partial DMM architecture - I wonder whether this should be > introduced as new term in ch. 2 e.g. Thanks, we have rewritten it a bit. > > 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? We have rewritten the text to avoid the use of "Partial DMM". > > of the mobile selecting => of the mobile node selecting Fixed. > p.13: HSS [why not using 3GPP-independent term CMD here?] - same on When used as an example, I prefer to keep it. > p.15 ... > p.15: mn1dgw2/mn1dgw1 [not used in Fig.6, shouldn't it say > mn1mar2/mn1mar1 instead?] Fixed. > the serving MAAR (MAAR1) => the serving MAAR (MAAR2) [right? Since > MAAR2 is the actual S-MAAR of MN1 in Fig. 6] Right, fixed. > 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 All fixed. > both solution apply the same signalling scheme => meaning full and > partial or rather operation of the solution in both (of mentioned > multiple) domains here? Meaning the solution in both domains. We have clarified it. > 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?] All fixed. Thanks a lot! Carlos > > Thanks and best regards > Dirk > -----Original Message----- > From: dmm [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Carlos Jesús > Bernardos Cano > Sent: Dienstag, 6. März 2018 23:18 > To: [email protected] > 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 [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
