Thanks for your review. Authors, do you have any responses?
I personally support the idea of adding more term definitions. Jari Enrico Marocco kirjoitti:
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-mip-interactions-06 Reviewer: Enrico Marocco Review Date: May 12, 2010 IETF LC End Date: May 17, 2010 Summary: This draft is on the right track but has open issues, described in the review. Major issues: Terminology and acronyms are not used consistently, making the document a very hard read for anyone who has no deep knowledge of the topic. To improve readability, rather than simply referring to RFC 3753 (that defines only a subset of the terms used in the draft), the Terminology section should provide even short definitions for terms like LMA, MAG, MN, HA, AR, BCE, PBU, AR, MN-HoA, other than for CoA, HoA and HNP that, as far as I understand, are synonyms of terms already defined. If the authors agree to add such definitions, then the first sentence of S. 2. should be rephrased with something like: "Terminology used in this document is consistent with the general mobility terminology defined in RFC 3743." Minor issues: The RFC Editor will have a hard time taking care that the acronyms are expanded the first time they appear in the text, and contracted thereafter (e.g. PMIPv6 and MIPv6 are used both expanded and in their compact form throughout the whole document, without apparently following any particular logic). Nits/editorial comments: S. 1, third paragraph: s/all/some/ (or s/all/most of the/ if the authors feel very confident). Figure 1, the preamble should be removed and replaced at the end of the first bullet in S. 3 with something like "Figure 1 illustrates this scenario." Figure 3 and Figure 4 are actually Figure 2 and Figure 3; Figure 2 is Figure 4. The following comments assume correct numbering. S. 3, please provide a reference or some text describing what a "HMIPv6-MIPv6 interaction" is (also mentioned in S. 3.1). S. 3, sixth para: s/the above figure/the scenario illustrated in Figure 2/ S. 3, sixth para: s/The following figure/Figure 3/ S. 3.2, first bullet in 1: provide a reference for IKEv2. S. 3.2, third bullet in 4: s/binging/bindding/ S. 4.2.1, last para: provide a reference and possibly some text describing the "R bit defined in NEMO".
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
