Subject: [Gen-art] re-review of draft-ietf-mipshop-pfmipv6-11.txt

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:12:13 +0100

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-mipshop-pfmipv6-11.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 2009-09-22/2009-11-30
IETF LC End Date: 2009-09-22
IESG Telechat date: unknown

Summary: Ready

Comments: the style is still at least questionable, I quote an example:

   (f)  If the F flag is set in the previous step, a bi-directional
        tunnel is established between the PMAG and NMAG and packets
        destined for the MN are forwarded from the PMAG to the NMAG over
        this tunnel.  After decapsulation, those packets may be buffered
        at the NMAG.  If the connection between the N-AN and NMAG has
        already been established, those packets may be forwarded towards
        the N-AN, which then becomes responsible for them (e.g.,
        buffering or delivering depending on the condition of the MN's
        attachment); this is access technology specific.

IMHO if abbrevs are fine in figures and can help to keep a document
reasonably not too long, their abuse as in this document is clearly
not a good thing. Now it is a matter of taste.

Regards

[email-masked]