The -08 version of this draft addresses all of the nits noted in the Gen-ART review of the -07 version. The -08 version is ready for publication as an Experimental RFC.
Thanks, --David > -----Original Message----- > From: Black, David > Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2014 10:23 PM > To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; General Area Review Team ([email protected]) > Cc: Black, David; [email protected]; Brian Haberman > ([email protected]); [email protected] > Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source-07 > > 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-multimob-pmipv6-source-07 > Reviewer: David L. Black > Review Date: Feb 16, 2014 > IETF LC End Date: Feb 24, 2014 > > Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that > should be fixed before publication. > > This draft describes multicast support for proxy mobile IPv6. It assumes > significant understanding of multicast and specifically the PIM-SM protocol. > > Nits/editorial comments: > > -- Introduction, 3rd paragraph > > Remove the word business from the following text, please: > > Such approaches (partially) follow > the business model of providing multicast data services in parallel > to PMIPv6 unicast routing [I-D.ietf-multimob-handover-optimization]. > > -- 4.3.1 > > The fact that PIM-SM has three phases could be made somewhat clearer here. > Suggestion: > > OLD > The granularity of mobility-related routing > locators required in PIM depends on the complexity (phases) of its > deployment. > > The following information is needed for all three phases of PIM as > defined in [RFC4601]. > NEW > The granularity of mobility-related routing > locators required in PIM depends on the complexity (specific phase) > of its deployment. > > For all three phases of PIM deployment (see [RFC4601]), the following > information is needed. > > Also, is "deployment" the right word to describe the phases? It implies > that not all of the phases need to be present in an implementation or > used, even if applicable. > > -- 4.3.2 - 4.3.4 > > I would also suggest including the names of the phases from RFC 4601 in > these section titles, e.g.: > > 4.3.2. Operations of PIM in Phase One (RP Tree) > > -- idnits > > idnits 2.13.01 found an unused reference and a couple of drafts that > have been updated: > > == Unused Reference: 'RFC2236' is defined on line 1047, but no explicit > reference was found in the text > > == Outdated reference: A later version (-02) exists of > draft-ietf-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast-01 > > == Outdated reference: A later version (-07) exists of > draft-ietf-multimob-handover-optimization-06 > > Thanks, > --David > ---------------------------------------------------- > David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer > EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748 > +1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786 > [email protected] Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754 > ---------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
