Hi Spencer,
thanks for the review and comments on presentation issues. Please see
inline.
On 25.03.2014 17:27, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source-08: No Objection
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have a couple of questions about text clarity. Please consider them,
along with any other comments you receive from other reviewers.
And I should say that MIP/PMIP drafts I've often read have been dense for
me, and this one is clearer than most - thank you for that.
:-)
4.3.2. Operations of PIM in Phase One (RP Tree)
Source handover management in PIM phase one admits low complexity and
remains transparent to receivers. In addition, the source register
tunnel management of PIM is a fast protocol operation and little
overhead is induced thereof.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I didn't understand this text clearly. Is it saying something like
"little overhead is introduced"?
Yes, we reworded: "... PIM is a fast protocol operation that introduces
little overhead."
7. Security Considerations
In addition to proper authorization checks
of MNs, rate controls at routing agents and replicators MAY be
required to protect the agents and the downstream networks. In
^^^^^^^^
is this "may be needed"? The passive voice doesn't make the text easy to
parse (and I'm thinking this MAY is not a 2119 MAY, but that's a separate
issue).
Yes, you're right: "may be needed" is what we wanted to say ;)
particular, MLD proxy implementations at MAGs SHOULD carefully
procure for automatic multicast state extinction on the departure of
^^^^^^^
This word doesn't fit (a quick google of online directionaries pointed
toward "procure" as obtaining something by special effort, for example).
I wondered if you meant "probe", but I'm guessing.
"Probe" would refer to a special solution to achieve this clean-up of
state. We would reword:
"MLD proxy implementations at MAGs SHOULD automatically extinct
multicast state on the departure of"
Consequently,
implementations of peering-enabled proxies SHOULD take particular
care on maintaining (varying) IP configurations at the downstream in
^^^^^^^^^
I don't understand what "varying" means in this context (my first guess
was that it was being used as a synonym for "maintaining", which didn't
work). Is it needed at all?
The focus here is on the changing IP connectivity at a MAG's downstream.
We reword:
"implementations of peering-enabled proxies SHOULD take particular care
on keeping IP configurations consistent"
a reliable and timely manner (see [RFC6224] for requirements on
PMIPv6-compliant implementations of MLD proxies).
We will update the draft accordingly.
Best,
thomas
--
Prof. Dr. Thomas C. Schmidt
° Hamburg University of Applied Sciences Berliner Tor 7 °
° Dept. Informatik, Internet Technologies Group 20099 Hamburg, Germany °
° http://www.haw-hamburg.de/inet Fon: +49-40-42875-8452 °
° http://www.informatik.haw-hamburg.de/~schmidt Fax: +49-40-42875-8409 °
_______________________________________________
multimob mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob
