Hi Brian,
Thank you for reviewing our draft. Please find our responses below: > 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-rohc-hcoipsec-11.txt > Reviewer: Brian Carpenter > Review Date: 2008-09-14 > IETF LC End Date: 2009-09-17 > IESG Telechat date: (if known) > > Summary: Almost ready > -------- > > Major issues: > ------------- > > There seems to be some confusion in the description of Fig. 2 in section 6.1, > since there are three references to (Figure 1, Path x) which I suppose should > all be (Figure 2, Path x). Thanks for pointing this out. We will update these references to read 'Figure 2'. > Minor issues: > ------------- > > I think Figure 1 would be a little clearer if there were explicit references in > the notes, e.g., > > (1) Compressed hop-by-hop by ROHC ESP/IP profile [a standard ROHC reference?] > (2) Compressed end-to-end by ROHCoIPsec TCP/IP profile [IPSEC-ROHC] > > I suggest adding the hop-by-hop and end-to-end clarifications too, because > until I figured that out, I was worried about fragmentation. OK, I will add the 'hop-by-hop' and 'end-to-end' qualifiers, in addition to the [ROHC] and [IPSEC-ROHC] references. > Similarly, Figure 2 would be a little clearer if Path 2 was labelled something > like: > > Path 2 > (ROHC-enabled SA, > but no compression) We will make this change as well. Thanks again! BR, Emre
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
