Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-mext-rfc3775bis-06.txt

From: "Miguel A. Garcia" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 16:01:12 +0200

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at 
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq

Please resolve these comments along with any other comments you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-mext-rfc3775bis-06.txt
Reviewer: Miguel Garcia <[email-masked]>
Review Date: 17-Sept-2010
IETF LC End Date: 21-Sept-2010

Summary: The document is almost ready for publication as a standards 
track RFC, but has some small issues that should be polished.

Major issues: none

Minor issues:

- I noticed that the document does not contain as much normative text as 
I would have expected. For example, see the 3rd and following paragraphs 
in Section 3.1, which describe the exchanges of messages between the MR 
and the HA. I understand that anything that is normatively described in 
RFC 3315 or  RFC 3633 does not need to be repeated normatively here. But 
there is quite a lot of text an non-normative statements. Is this done on 
purpose?

- On the second paragraph in Section 3.3, the text describes an update to 
the procedures of RFC 3315. Therefore, RFC 3315 should be listed in the 
cover page of the draft as "Updates: RFC 3315". This is for the RFC 
Editor to properly update the RFC database and when people search for RFC 
3315 they can find that there is an update in your draft.

- Considering the dependency on draft-ietf-mext-rfc3775bis, I think this 
draft should be promoted to a normative reference (so, a moved from 
Section 8.2 to 8.1).

Nits/editorial comments:

- Section 3, first paragraph, at the end of the second sentence, the text 
reads:

   "In this extension, an MR uses..."

It is not clear to me if "this extension" refers to "NEMO Basic Support 
protocol" or "the document you are currently reading". Please, make it 
explicit

- Another ambiguity. The third paragraph on Section 3 reads:

    To use DHCPv6PD for NEMOs, the HA assumes the role of the DR, and the
    MR assumes the role of the RR when located at home, and the role of a
    DRA co-located with the RR function, when the MR is away from home.

The sequence of two ", and ..." makes it difficult to digest the text. I 
recommend something around these lines:

    To use DHCPv6PD for NEMOs, when the MR is located at home the HA 
assumes the role of the DR and the MR assumes the role of the RR. 
However, when the MR is away from home, in addition to the roles when the 
MR is located at home, the MR also assumes the role of a DRA co-located 
with the RR function.

- Section 3.1, second paragraph, the text reads:

    Since the MR may not have yet requested any prefixes,
    implicit BU signaling MUST be used.

In order to properly address statement of compliance towards this RFC, 
can you please turn the sentence involving the normative "MUST" from 
passive into active?

- Expand terms at first occurrence. This include at least "BU".

- It would be nice to see formal references when an RFC is named. For 
example, in Section 3.1 there are quite many references to other RFC 
numbers without a formal reference to the documents listed in Section 8. 
There are other instances of this issue throughout the document.

- Not being myself familiar with the technology described here, it has 
been a bit hard to read the document due to the large amount of acronyms. 
If possible, I would recommend the authors to expand all the acronyms for 
helping those like me.

/Miguel

-- 
Miguel A. Garcia
+34-91-339-3608
Ericsson Spain

---

From: "Miguel A. Garcia" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 08:46:25 +0200

All,

I've noticed that the title of this e-mail is not correct. The document I 
reviewed, and the one it should have been reflected in the title was:

      draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd-06.txt

I will resubmit this e-mail with the correct title for records.

Sorry for the trouble I may have caused.

/Miguel

On 17/09/2010 16:01, Miguel A. Garcia wrote:
> Reviewer: Miguel Garcia<[email-masked]>

-- 
Miguel A. Garcia
+34-91-339-3608
Ericsson Spain