Dear Martin, Thanks for your review. Please see some comments inline below.
On Sun, 2013-10-27 at 14:54 -0700, Martin Thomson wrote: > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on > Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq> > > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you > may receive. > > Document: draft-ietf-netext-pd-pmip-11 > Reviewer: Martin Thomson > Review Date: 2013-10-27 > IETF LC End Date: 2013-10-31 > IESG Telechat date: ? > > This document is ready (PS), modulo a few niggles. > > Minor issues: > > Where is ALL_ZERO defined? (Same for NON_ZERO.) I can guess, but I > don't like doing that. [Authors] These are defined in RFC5213. We can add a explicit reference first time we introduce these terms. > > S5.3: > It's been a while since I've done DHCP, but doesn't the client use > port 68? Wouldn't that mean that the SA1(OUT) and SA2(IN) rules > require a label for both local_port and remote_port? Or have we > started to use ephemeral ports at the client now (in which case, good, > because that port 68 thing is a major headache)? [Authors] The client does not always use port 68. Therefore, we believe current rule is flexible and sufficient. > > Nits: > > The overview sections don't make it easy to work out what this > document is actually defining. It took me until 3.2.3 to be even > moderately certain what it was that this documented defined. Is there > any way to be more specific about what extensions are being defined in > S1 or the lead-in to S3? [Authors] We summarize what the document is defining in the Introduction: " This specification defines extensions to the Proxy Mobile IPv6 protocol for allowing mobility support to the mobile networks attached to a mobile router. The mobile router can request the mobility entities in the Proxy Mobile IPv6 domain for one or more delegated IP prefixes using DHCP Prefix Delegation extensions [RFC3633], or through other means such as static configuration, or access technology specific mechanisms." > > S1: > > "In this context, the mobility management support that > is enabled for an individual IP host, which is the mobile node." > > Seems like an unfinished sentence. Or maybe a redundant "that". [Authors] We'll fix this in -12 (by removing "that"). > > S2: > > This document really needs a f'rinstance. It's pretty clear why this > is being done, but it's unnecessarily convoluted by a need to use the > official labels for everything. For instance, LFN is probably just my > PC tethered to my phone (the MR). [Authors] We believe it is better to use the labels for the sake of ensuring the correctness of the text. > > S3.2.1: > > Expand acronyms. [Authors] Which acronyms are you referring to? in the text or in the figure 2? > > 5.1.2: > > The text around PBU is strange with regard to the lifetime of zero > conditions. Suggest a four-way list rather than > two-way-plus-exceptions-on-each. [Authors] We'll check if we can improve the readability of this section. Thanks, Carlos _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
