Subject: [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-netlmm-nohost-req-05

From: "Michael A. Patton" <[email-masked]>
Date: 29 Nov 2006 01:12:58 -0500

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).

Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document Tag: draft-ietf-netlmm-nohost-req-05
Document Title: Goals for Network-based Localized Mobility Management
Intended Status: Informational
Shepherding AD: Jari Arkko
Reviewer: Michael A. Patton [[email-masked]]
Review Date:  29-Nov-06
IESG Telechat Date: 30-Nov-06

Summary: Ready w/nits

As with John's earlier review, Brian already has a vote recorded for
this, but I felt it worth a review anyway...

This draft is probably ready for publication as an Informational RFC.
However, the items that John Loughney brought up in his earlier review
still mostly apply.  John's earlier review can be found at:
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/reviews/draft-ietf-netlmm-nohost-req-04-loughney.txt

John's items 1 and 2 are both still true and I agree that they really
should be fixed.

John's item 3 talked about readability and I still find it somewhat
difficult to read.  However, from looking at the diffs via potaroo I
see that there have been a large number of improvements.  Given how
much trouble I had with the parts of the new draft I read, I can only
imagine how hard John had it.

In item 4 John talked about the orientation of section 2 (now
renumbered to section 3).  While many were reworded to say "the goal
is..." the description of many still sounds more like design
considerations despite their declaration that they are goals.
Additionally there's now a section 2 added which seems to describe a
finished design (however briefly) which seems even more out of place
in a "goals" document.

And finally, John's item 5 talks about a small part of an appendix,
the entirety of which seems to have vanished into thin air.  So, it
wasn't addressed but merely no longer applies...

I might have commented on a few additional things.  But, as this was a
re-review, I constrained myself to the points raised in the previous
GenART review.

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art