Thank you for your answers. I agree that the document is ready for WGLC. As we seem to agree on the need for edits, please consider addressing my comments for the next version of the document (including clarification text for items #1 and #6).
Regards, Dan From: Liu Dapeng [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 8:32 AM To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] review of draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-extension-01 Hi Dan, Thanks for your comments. 2013/10/30 Romascanu, Dan (Dan) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Hi, I have read draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-extension-01. I am no expert in IEEE 802.11 technology, so I cannot confirm the accuracy of the .11-related information in this I-D. It looks like straight forward and consistent work, but it needs review from the IEEE experts as long as several editorial improvements. IEEE experts have reviewed the draft during the September IEEE 802 wireless interim meeting. The 01 version draft has been updated according to the comments received. Here are my comments (mostly editorial, but important to make the document readable and usable): 1. The document obviously updated RFC 5416. This needs to be mentioned in the Header. Moreover, there must be some information about the migration or coexistence from a previous CAPWAP environment that did not support IEEE 802.11n and a new environment that supports .11n and the CAPWAP extensions defined in this document The coexistence mechanism could be simple: just ignore the message if not supported. 2. The document needs a section of abbreviations - expand and explain if necessary what OFDM, MIMO, etc. mean OK 3. There is a need of cleaning the English syntax - preferable by a native English speaker. OK, we will clean the text and find a native speaker to review. 4. Keywords need to be used in a manner that is consistent and conforms to RFC 2119. For example the 'may' in the first paragraph of Section 4.2, or in the first paragraph of section 4.3 need to be capitalized. OK 5. Some of the fields need to have the units for the parameters added - e.g. MaxRxFactor, Min StaSpacing, HiSuppDataRate 6. In Section 5.3 I could not understand what 'Report Count: The channel number will be reported' - is it a number or a count? It is a count. Since this draft has been reviewed by IEEE experts and only editorial comments left, the authors believe it is ready for WGLC. Regards, Dapeng Liu Thanks and Regards, Dan _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg -- ------ Best Regards, Dapeng Liu
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
