Thank Ben very much!
The revised version will be ready ASAP by incorporating the changes.
Best Regards,
Junghoon
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ben Campbell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Junghoon Jee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "General Area Review Team" <[email protected]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 12:22 PM
Subject: Re: Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-16ng-ps-goals-03
>
> Thanks for the quick response!
>
> I think that the changes you propose will address my comments.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Ben.
>
>
> On Dec 10, 2007, at 8:24 PM, Junghoon Jee wrote:
>
>> Dear Ben Campbell,
>> Thank you for carefully reviewing the draft.
>> Please find inline replies.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Ben Campbell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "General Area Review Team" <[email protected]>
>> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> networks.com>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >
>> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 2:31 AM
>> Subject: Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-16ng-ps-goals-03
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 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-16ng-ps-goals-03
>>> Reviewer: Ben Campbell
>>> Review Date: 10 December 2007
>>> IETF LC End Date: 10 December 2007
>>> IESG Telechat date: (if known)
>>>
>>> Summary:
>>>
>>> This document is almost ready for publication as an informational
>>> RFC.
>>> There are some editorial nits that should be addressed prior to
>>> publication.
>>>
>>> Comments:
>>>
>>> General: There are many occurrences of missing articles ("a", "an",
>>> or
>>> "the") or the occasional use of an article where it does not belong.
>>> While I assume that the RFC editors will fix these, it would same
>>> them
>>> some work if you did an additional proofreading pass for this sort of
>>> thing.
>>
>> Yes, additional proofreading will be done ASAP and the next revision
>> will apply the correction.
>>
>>>
>>> Terminology Section, Definition of "Ethernet CS":
>>>
>>> It would be helpful to have a reference for 802.16 STD.
>>
>> That part will be amended that part like below:
>> Ethernet CS: It means 802.3/Ethernet CS specific part of the Packet
>> CS defined in [IEEE802.16].
>>
>> IP CS terminology will also reference [IEEE802.16].
>>
>>>
>>> Section 4.1, paragraph 7: "In the first point-to-point link model..."
>>>
>>> I think you mean to refer to the first model in the preceding list,
>>> which is the point-to-point link model. The wording sounds like you
>>> mean the first of a set of point-to-point link models, which is
>>> incorrect. I suggest just dropping the word "first".
>>
>> Right!
>> Let me drop that word.
>>
>>> A similar issue occurs in paragraph 9 ("In the second Ethernet like
>>> link model...") and 11 ("The last shared IPv6 prefix link model")
>>
>> Let me drop the 'second' and 'last' in them.
>>
>>> Section 4.1, paragraph 9: "There needs mechanisms ..."
>>>
>>> It looks like some words are missing from this sentence.
>>
>> Let me try to apply the following change:
>> - From: There needs mechanisms like IEEE 802.1D to realize multicast
>> and broadcast for Ethernet CS.
>> - To: Therefore, we need a mechanism like 802.1D to realize
>> multicast and broadcast.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Section 4.1, paragraph 10, starting with "Moreover, the frequent IP
>>> multicast..."
>>>
>>> I had trouble parsing this paragraph in general. Also, Is "IP subnet
>>> like ethernet" the same as "Ethernet like link model"?
>>
>> Let me try to apply the following change:
>> - From: Moreover, the frequent IP multicast and broadcast signaling
>> within the IP subnet like Ethernet needs to be avoided not to wake
>> up sleep/idle [IEEE802.16e] SSs.
>> - To: Moreover, the frequent IP multicast and broadcast signaling
>> should be avoided not to wake up sleep/idle [IEEE802.16e] SSs.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Section 4.1, last paragraph:
>>>
>>> "According to the point-to-point feature of 802.16's MAC, the Point-
>>> to-Point link model is the feasible IP Subnet model for IP CS under
>>> considering the multilink subnet problems. "
>>>
>>> I cannot parse this sentence--please rephrase.
>>
>> Let me try to apply the following change:
>> - From: According to the point-to-point feature of 802.16's MAC, the
>> Point-to-Point link model is the feasible IP Subnet model for IP CS
>> under considering the multilink subnet problems.
>> - To: According to the point-to-point feature of 802.16's MAC, the
>> Point-to-Point link model is the feasible IP Subnet model in case of
>> the IP CS.
>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> Ben Campbell.
>>>
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Junghoon
>_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
