Hi all, First of all Happy New Year to everyone!
Thanks Akbar for posting your review and being so timely on this as always, we appreciate it :-). My message is to others who also committed a review, please post your reviews. Let's help WG draft authors by good reviews. I am hoping that at least a few of them can be in WGLC status maybe after presentations in Orlando. Regards, Behcet On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Rahman, Akbar < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi,**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > As per my action from the IETF-Atlanta meeting, I have reviewed:**** > > ** ** > > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-ropt-02.txt**** > > ** ** > > and have the following comments:**** > > ** ** > > **1) **Section 1, 4th paragraph**** > > **· **Can you give some more guidance (qualitative or > quantitative) as to when the two enhancements covered in this I-D should > be used over the baseline (RFC6224) solution? A (small) separate section > to cover this question in the Overview (section 3) would be very helpful.* > *** > > ** ** > > **2) **Section 3.2, Figure 2 **** > > **· **This figure should be re-drawn to match the conventions of > Figure 1 (or vice versa). Since Figure 1 and Figure 2 are supposed to > illustrate the two main options of the I-D, it is unfortunate that they are > currently using different conventions (e.g. Fig. 2 shows MN movement, while > Fig. 1 does not). **** > > ** ** > > **3) **Section 6**** > > **· **For completeness, I think you need a (short) new section > similar to this one for the MR.**** > > ** ** > > **4) **Section 9**** > > **· **Needs to be updated to cover section 5.1.2 “Type”**** > > ** ** > > **5) **Section 10**** > > **· **But isn’t there protocol modifications proposed, for > example, in section 5.1.1?**** > > **· **Also, the MTMA is introduced as a new node not existing in > previous PMIP architectures. So definitely some discussion is needed to > show the security considerations of the MTMA. Perhaps the same is needed > for the MR in the Direct Routing option?**** > > ** ** > > **6) **General – Overall, the document is well written and in good > shape, and I support in progressing it further once the updates above are > made.**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > /Akbar**** > > ** ** > > _______________________________________________ > multimob mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob > >
_______________________________________________ multimob mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob
