Hi Miguel,

Miguel A. Garcia 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-netlmm-pmipv6-heartbeat-04.txt
Reviewer: Miguel Garcia <[email protected]>
Review Date: 2009-02-26
IETF LC End Date: 2009-03-03
IEST Telechat date: 2009-03-12

Summary: The document is ready for publication as a Standards track RFC.

There are no issues in the document, however, a few editorial comments.

- Figures: it would be nice to include a Figure number and a caption in each figure. This makes life easier if another document needs to refer to such figure, so that document could say "According to Figure 2 in RFC xxxx..."

- The first figure in Section 3.3 lacks the numbers that represent the order of bits in the figure.

Fixed both.

- idnits reports that RFC 4887 (an informational document) is referred to as a normative document. I think RFC 4887 should be an informational reference.

I made a mistake here. I wanted to refer to RFC 4877, not 4887. RFC 4877 is the right one that describes how to use IKEv2/IPsec to secure mobility header messages. 4877 is a Standards Track document. Thanks!

- I noticed that IANA has correctly understood the intended actions. However, I think the text in the draft is a bit cryptographically encrypted. I would have removed references to the registry created by RFC 3775 and instead I would have mentioned the registry by name: "Mobile IPv6 parameters registry, Mobility Header types for the MH Type field in the mobility header subregistry". Long, but precise.

Does it matter? I have used the same style in the past in other documents that have defined new mobility header messages types and new mobility options. IANA seems to be fine with this....

Vijay
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Reply via email to