Hi Dan, Thank you for your kind review and valuable comments. We will address all your comments in the next version and will improve the writing as well. Tom Taylor has volunteered to do the editorial review and that would be very helpful to improve the quality of the draft. Many thanks to Tom.
Thanks, Dapeng Liu 2013/11/4 Romascanu, Dan (Dan) <[email protected]> > 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]> > > 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] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > > > > > > -- > > ------ > Best Regards, > Dapeng Liu > -- ------ Best Regards, Dapeng Liu
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
