There have been very varied reactions to this draft. John isn't
the only person to find it unclear. I found that it explained NetLMM
to me quite well. Obviously a case of YMMV.
Brian
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I noticed that Brian has already issued his ballot on this, but I had
written-up
some rough comments on this, so I'm sending them for completeness sake.
These are mostly nits, but I generally have to say that overall, the
document
doesn't seem very readable.
1) Contributor section at the beginning seems odd, and the second
sentence seems
a bit gratitous. I'd suggest moving it to the acknoledge section and
dropping
the last sentence.
Gerardo Giaretta, Kent Leung, Katsutoshi Nishida, Phil Roberts, and
Marco Liebsch all contributed major effort to this document. Their
names are not included in the authors' section due to the RFC
Editor's limit of 5 names.
2) The 1 sentence abstract is a bit weak, I think it could state a bit
more.
3) Editorially, I found the entire document difficult to read. It took
me
several re-reads to make heads-or-tails of the document, but then
again, I should
probably read drafts earlier in the day (or after a stiff cup of
coffee).
4) Some of section 2 seems like design trade-offs or design
considerations more
than goals.
5) Appendix, section 8.6 has an entry called Micro. but it isn't clear
if the
document means Cellular IP or HAWAII or generally all micromobility
protocols.
John
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
