Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-netlmm-mip-interactions-06

From: Enrico Marocco <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 15:28:33 +0200

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-netlmm-mip-interactions-06
Reviewer: Enrico Marocco
Review Date: May 12, 2010
IETF LC End Date: May 17, 2010

Summary: This draft is on the right track but has open issues, described
in the review.

Major issues:

Terminology and acronyms are not used consistently, making the document
a very hard read for anyone who has no deep knowledge of the topic. To
improve readability, rather than simply referring to RFC 3753 (that
defines only a subset of the terms used in the draft), the Terminology
section should provide even short definitions for terms like LMA, MAG,
MN, HA, AR, BCE, PBU, AR, MN-HoA, other than for CoA, HoA and HNP that,
as far as I understand, are synonyms of terms already defined.

If the authors agree to add such definitions, then the first sentence of
S. 2. should be rephrased with something like: "Terminology used in this
document is consistent with the general mobility terminology defined in
RFC 3743."

Minor issues:

The RFC Editor will have a hard time taking care that the acronyms are
expanded the first time they appear in the text, and contracted
thereafter (e.g. PMIPv6 and MIPv6 are used both expanded and in their
compact form throughout the whole document, without apparently following
any particular logic).

Nits/editorial comments:

S. 1, third paragraph: s/all/some/ (or s/all/most of the/ if the authors
feel very confident).

Figure 1, the preamble should be removed and replaced at the end of the
first bullet in S. 3 with something like "Figure 1 illustrates this
scenario."

Figure 3 and Figure 4 are actually Figure 2 and Figure 3; Figure 2 is
Figure 4. The following comments assume correct numbering.

S. 3, please provide a reference or some text describing what a
"HMIPv6-MIPv6 interaction" is (also mentioned in S. 3.1).

S. 3, sixth para: s/the above figure/the scenario illustrated in Figure 2/

S. 3, sixth para: s/The following figure/Figure 3/

S. 3.2, first bullet in 1: provide a reference for IKEv2.

S. 3.2, third bullet in 4: s/binging/bindding/

S. 4.2.1, last para: provide a reference and possibly some text
describing the "R bit defined in NEMO".

-- 
Ciao,
Enrico

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 10:00:43 +0300

Thanks for your review. Authors, do you have any responses?

I personally support the idea of adding more term definitions.

Jari

---

From: "Giaretta, Gerardo" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 06:43:38 -0700

Agree this will improve readability. 

I will add them in the next version which I need to produce also to take care of Charlie's comments 

Gerardo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jari Arkko [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 12:01 AM
> To: Enrico Marocco
> Cc: [email-masked]; gen-
> [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-netlmm-mip-interactions-06
>