Hi Carlos,
Thanks for the updates. I think the document is in good shape and should be adopted. I did have some small suggestions though for the next revision: 1) Abstract - Suggest to remove the last paragraph on "distributed logical interface" as it appears to be a detail and is not very clear anyways at this point in the document what it implies. If you want to keep the paragraph it should be further clarified as it is not clear what "a software construct" implies? 2) Figures 2, 3, & 4 - Suggest to replace use of the "?" in the ASCII figure construction with another symbol (such as used in Figure 1). 3) Section 3.6 - Need to better clarify in the 1st paragraph text in which node the "software construct" of the DLIF is located. And also, not clear currently why a node internal software construct needs to be discussed in a protocol document. So probably just my lack of understanding but points to the section requiring further clarity. Best Regards, Akbar -----Original Message----- From: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) [mailto:sgund...@cisco.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 7, 2018 10:21 AM To: c...@it.uc3m.es; dmm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [DMM] [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-bernardos-dmm-pmipv6-dlif-01.txt] Thanks Carlos. Folks - Please review the document and post your feedback. https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-bernardos-dmm-pmipv6-dlif-01.txt At IETF100, we polled the WG feedback for adopting this document and there was consensus for adopting this document. However, we chose not to adopt the document as there were no recent discussions in the mailer on this document. We therefore request the WG for feedback in the mailer. We plan to issue an adoption call post IETF101, but we need some feedback and substantial comments. Dapeng & Sri On 3/6/18, 2:17 PM, "dmm on behalf of Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano" <dmm-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of c...@it.uc3m.es> wrote: >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
