Subject: [Gen-art] GEN-ART review of draft-ietf-mip4-generic-notification-message

From: Sean Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2009 08:53:05 -0400

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 resolve
these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-mip4-generic-notification-message-09.txt
Reviewer: Sean Turner
Review Date: 2009-09-07
IETF LC End Date: 2009-09-08
IESG Telechat date: N/A

Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits
that should be fixed before publication.

I have to admit that following along in section 4.3.*, 4.4.*, and 4.5.*
is a little tough for somebody who is not steeped in the mip4 WG.  I
don't think it is avoidable, but I am leaning somewhat on the WG/authors
to ensure it all hangs together (it is the -09 version after all).

4: The follow sentence is awkward: "The MN and HA MUST maintain the
following information, the FA also need maintain both HA's and MN's
direction the below information:".  Should it be "FA also needs to
maintain both the HA's ...?

4.1 and 4.2: I assume the "Type (TBD)" will be assigned by IANA, but
should there be an RFC Editor's note added to indicate as much?

4.5.4: r/by The MN-FA/by the MN-FA

5: r/. for/. For

5: r/mechanism also./mechanism.

5: The last sentence before the list has 3 values, but the sentence says
theres are four values reserved.  Is it 3 or 4?

7:

OLD:

The author appreciate the efforts of Ahmad Muhanna in detail reviewing
of this document, lots of text have been contributed by his suggestions.
  The author thank the discussion from Kent Leung, Peng Yang and Peter
McCann et al. in the development of this document.

NEW:

The authors appreciate the efforts of Ahmad Muhanna for his detailed
review of this document and his many contributions to the text of this
document.  The authors also want to thank Kent Leung, Peng Yang, and
Peter McCann et al. for their help developing this document.

8: r:/It require that this message/It requires that these messages
? There are two messages defined correct?

8.1: r/This document require/This document requires

8.1: r/two peer node/two peer nodes

There are a number of places where ". if" should be replaced by ". If"
and ".  if" should be replaced by ".  If".

So this might be considered nit picking, but normally when I start a
sentence of with "If ....," right after the comma there's a "then ...."

Cheers,

spt

---

From: Hui Deng <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 00:22:33 +0800

Dear Sean.

Thanks for your review, reply inline
And I have updated the darft to versioin 11, please kindly help to
check it again

> to ensure it all hangs together (it is the -09 version after all).
==> Thanks for understanding.

> maintain both the HA's ...?
==> Updated

> should there be an RFC Editor's note added to indicate as much?
==> Updated (To be assigned by IANA)

> 4.5.4: r/by The MN-FA/by the MN-FA
==> Updated

> 5: r/. for/. For
==> Updated

> 5: r/mechanism also./mechanism.
==> Updated
> theres are four values reserved.  Is it 3 or 4?
==> Updated 3

> Peter McCann et al. for their help developing this document.
==> Updated, thanks,

> ? There are two messages defined correct?
==> Updated

> 8.1: r/This document require/This document requires
==> Updated

> 8.1: r/two peer node/two peer nodes
==> Updated
> sentence of with "If ....," right after the comma there's a "then ...."
==> Updated

thanks again
best regards,

-Hui