Hi Zahed, Many thanks for your review. Please see inline with [PC]. Rev24 just posted.
-----Original Message----- From: Zaheduzzaman Sarker via Datatracker <[email protected]> Sent: martes, 3 de enero de 2023 14:58 To: The IESG <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) <[email protected]>; Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) <[email protected]> Subject: Zaheduzzaman Sarker's No Objection on draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-23: (with COMMENT) Zaheduzzaman Sarker has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-23: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for working on this specification. Thanks also for attending useful discussion throughout the progress of the document, I think informational status probably the right thing to do. I have some comments, those I think when addressed with improve the document more - 1. Section 4: I see no need to change UE = User equipment to UE = User endpoint. [PC] Many thanks. My bad, I've kept it consistent to User Equipment. 2. I didn't find scalability as a motivating point in the section 3 in clear text, however, found the enhanced mode to solve the scalability issue later. This happens without educating us about the scalability issue that the mobile network has. I think it would be great if this informational specification also inform about the existing issues regarding scalability the current network architecture has. [PC] Good point. I've added to section 3. 3. hmm, how any modes we are really defining here ? we are defining traditional and enhanced mode, and then section 5.4 is also defining another one.. this is confusing. We should clearly say there are three modes in the beginning if we have 3 modes. However, I actually don't think 5.4 defines another mode, rather it is a combined arrangement of traditional and enhanced mode, so it should be call it that way or another mechanism of enhanced inter-working. [PC] Indeed. I corrected it at the beginning. _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
