Dear Carlos, all, Just wanted to point out, and congratulate all authors, on a document well done: the partial schemes provide a clear mechanism for maintaining connectivity while distributing control and data plane aspects. Even though it’s a -01, it already shows good form by pointing out the necessary extensions to RFC 5213’s messages (I would recommend this part to have it’s own section on the document), complemented with an interesting set of annexes showcasing implementation details, past experiences and even an on-look on future adaptability with edge-based mobility (we can even potentially bring some ideas to this discussion ourselves for consideration).
Some quick typos to be fixed: * pg4, 3rd paragraph, line 2, “where the dataplane is only distributted” * pg5, last paragraph, line 1, “participate” * pg8, 2nd paragraph, 6th line from the end, “the CMD sends a PBA” * pg10, 1st paragraph, line 3 “reflects” * pg11, 1st paragraph, line 4 “possession” * pg15, 1st paragraph, 6th line from the end, “interface” * pg15, 3rd paragraph, 5th line from the end, “considered” Best regards, Daniel Corujo Instituto de Telecomunicações - Pólo de Aveiro http://www.it.pt Watch our VIDEO: https://youtu.be/lI8DnmBnEtU Internet Technology Letters Journal is accepting publications: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)2476-1508 > On 12 Mar 2018, at 17:02, Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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
_______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
