Hi:
Inline comments.
Thierry Ernst wrote:
Dear Miguel,
Thanks for the comments. Please find my answers inline.
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 13:45:14 +0300
Miguel Garcia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Document: draft-ietf-nemo-multihoming-issues-07.txt
Reviewer: Miguel Garcia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Review Date: 2007-06-04
IETF LC End Date: 2007-06-05
Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an Informational RFC.
Comments: The document is well written and easy to understand. I just
have a few nits.
Nits:
- Section 1, second paragraph. The last sentence in this paragraph spans
across 6 lines and lacks readability. It should be improved.
OK. This is a pure wording modification. Here is my proposed
modification (I took the freedom to expand on the mentioned use case).
=== OLD ===
Scenarios illustrated in [6] demonstrate that providing a permanent
access to mobile networks such as vehicles typically require the use of
several interfaces and technologies since the mobile network may be
moving in distant geographical locations where different access
technologies are provided and governed by distinct access control
policies.
=== NEW ===
Scenarios illustrated in [6] demonstrate that providing a permanent
access to mobile networks typically require the use of several
interfaces and technologies. For example, this is particularly useful
for ITS (Intelligent Transport Systems) applications since vehicles are
moving across distant geographical locations. Access would be provided
through different access technologies (e.g. Wimax, Wifi, 3G) and through
different access operators (e.g. cellular operator, motorway operator,
gas stations).
Very good.
- Acronyms: The acronym MNP is first used in Section 1, 5th paragraph.
However, it is not expanded there, but it should. Expand the acronym AR
in Figure 1. Expadn W-PAN in Example 2 in Section 3.1.
Note MNP is defined in the NEMO Terminology doc which is mentioned
in the first sentence of the introduction. Do you think it's necessary
to mention the documents each time a new term is introduced ? Or, we
may add a "Terminology" section where we would explicitly say that MR,
MNP, etc are mentioned in these docs.
It should be expanded. I think the RFC Editor always expands the first
occurrence of an acronym, so if you don't do it, the RFC Editor will do it.
Also... related to this... I noticed that you mentioned NEMO and Shim6
WGs in the drafts. In general, I don't think RFCs should be mentioning
names of working groups, because the RFC becomes outdated when the WG
ceases. However, I understand that, in this case, it is very hard to
avoid mentioning NEMO and Shim6. But still I would like to mention in
case you can think of an appropriate solution that wouldn't make the RFC
outdated in a few years.
/Miguel
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
--
Miguel A. Garcia tel:+358-50-4804586
Nokia Siemens Networks Espoo, Finland
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
