Hi Akbar, Thanks for the review. Comments inline below.
On Mon, 2018-03-12 at 16:41 +0000, Rahman, Akbar wrote: > 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? [Carlos] OK, well clarify this further. > > 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). [Carlos] This will be fixed in -02. > > 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. [Carlos] Will clarify in -02. Thanks! Carlos > > > Best Regards, > > Akbar > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, March 7, 2018 10:21 AM > To: [email protected]; [email protected] > 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" > <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> 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 > > [Banner] > This e-mail is intended only for the use of the individual or entity > to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is > privileged, confidential and/or otherwise protected from disclosure > to anyone other than its intended recipient. Unintended transmission > shall not constitute waiver of any privilege or confidentiality > obligation. If you received this communication in error, please do > not review, copy or distribute it, notify me immediately by email, > and delete the original message and any attachments. Unless expressly > stated in this e-mail, nothing in this message or any attachment > should be construed as a digital or electronic signature. > _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
