Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-mip4-vpn-problem-solution-05.txt

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 11:18:03 -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: draft-ietf-mip4-vpn-problem-solution-05.txt
Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani
Review Date: 30 Mar 2008
IESG Telechat date: 31 Mar 2008

Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an Proposed
Standard.

Couple of nits follow:

- S1.6, page 9: s/abovementioned/above mentioned

- S3.2.4, last paragraph: s/untypical/atypical

- S5.2, last bullet item: I could not quite follow the logic of
  how the bytes add up to 20.  But that may be my unfamiliarity
  with the domain.  I simply want to get the authors attention
  here in case there is something of consequence.  If there
  is not, then please feel free to discard this comment.

Thanks,

- vijay
-- 
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
2701 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9F-546, Lisle, Illinois 60532 (USA)
Email: vkg@{alcatel-lucent.com,bell-labs.com,acm.org}
WWW:   http://www.alcatel-lucent.com/bell-labs
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

---

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 20:08:39 -0500

Sami Vaarala wrote:
> I see the wording there is a bit vague.  The first bullet list
> identifies the different overheads of the various modes.  The
> maximum one of those (97 octets) is then broken down into its
> components in the second bullet list (20 + 57 + 20).
> 
> My suggested fix would be to clarify the surrounding text a bit.
> 
> Change:
> 
>    The overhead consists of the following:
> 
> To:
> 
>    The maximum overhead of 97 octets in the 'cvc' access mode
>    consists of the following:

This is fine.  Thanks for your attention.

- vijay

---

From: Sami Vaarala <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 02:33:56 +0300

Hi Vijay,

Thanks for your time, a few comments below.

> - S3.2.4, last paragraph: s/untypical/atypical

Ok.  There was also another occurrence of 'abovementioned',
I've taken a note of that too.

Change:

To:

Thanks,

-Sami