Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-rohc-hcoipsec-11.txt

From: Emre Ertekin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 19:57:51 -0700

Hi Brian,

Thank you for reviewing our draft.  Please find our responses below:

> 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-rohc-hcoipsec-11.txt

> Reviewer: Brian Carpenter

> Review Date: 2008-09-14

> IETF LC End Date: 2009-09-17

> IESG Telechat date: (if known)

> Summary:   Almost ready

> --------

> Major issues:

> -------------

> There seems to be some confusion in the description of Fig. 2 in section
6.1,

> since there are three references to (Figure 1, Path x) which I suppose
should

> all be (Figure 2, Path x).

Thanks for pointing this out.  We will update these references to read
'Figure 2'.

> Minor issues:

> -------------

> I think Figure 1 would be a little clearer if there were explicit
references in

> the notes, e.g.,

>             (1) Compressed hop-by-hop by ROHC ESP/IP profile [a standard
ROHC reference?]

>             (2) Compressed end-to-end by ROHCoIPsec TCP/IP profile
[IPSEC-ROHC]

> I suggest adding the hop-by-hop and end-to-end clarifications too, because

> until I figured that out, I was worried about fragmentation.

OK, I will add the 'hop-by-hop' and 'end-to-end' qualifiers, in addition to
the [ROHC] and [IPSEC-ROHC] references.

> Similarly, Figure 2 would be a little clearer if Path 2 was labelled
something

> like:

>        Path 2

>       (ROHC-enabled SA,

>        but no compression)

We will make this change as well.

Thanks again!

BR,

Emre