Subject: Re: [netlmm] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-netlmm-proxymip6-00.txt

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 16:41:48 -0700 (PDT)

Hi Sri,
  I read the new draft and was unfortunately disappointed with the editorial quality. If you had this as version 2, many people would not have voted for you 

  There are numerous editorial problems, I don't have time to list them, they start with the abstract. The abstract does not say anything useful on the protocol described in the document. Remember that reading the abstract one should have an idea on the solution. I suggest starting with your sentence:
This specification describes a protocol
   solution for network based mobility management that relies on Mobile
   IPv6 signaling and reuse of home agent functionality.

but continue to shortly describe the protocol!

In the introduction section you list 
The advantages of developing a network based mobility
   protocol based on Mobile IPv6

and then 4 paragraphs later you relist these advantages.

You define the acronyms of LMA, MAG, PMA and you never use them afterwards, is it because you want to make the document longer?

Regards,

Behcet

_______________________________________________
netlmm mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm

---

From: "Sri Gundavelli" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 18:35:25 -0700

Hi Behcet,
 
Ok. Thanks for the feedback. We will see what changed between versions 01 to
02 and the
current version. As I said before, we quickly removed some sections and
submitted the
draft and so there is some editorial work left. We will work on all these
issues over the next 2 revs.

> The abstract does not say anything useful on the protocol described in the
document
 
Ok.  Be specific and let us know what detail is missing in the abstract. You
are welcome
to suggest some text, we will consider. The abstract says the doc is about
Proxy Mobile IPv6
where the mobile is not involved in signaling and the scheme is compared
with the host-based
mobility scheme. Also, that its based on Mobile IPv6. Let us know, what
specific detail this
abstract is missing.

> In the introduction section you list,  The advantages of developing a
network based mobility protocol based on Mobile IPv6
 
Ok, we will look into this.

> You define the acronyms of LMA, MAG, PMA and you never use them
afterwards, is it because you want to make the document longer?
 
We followed the 3344 and 3775 convention, using the words "Home Agent" as
supposed to HA, to the most extent.  But, the acronyms are certainly used.
See the
illustrations, routing section and many places.  The goal was not to make
the
document longer :), that was one of reasons, why it got stripped into
pieces.
 
Thanks
Sri

  _____  

From: Behcet Sarikaya [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 4:42 PM
To: Sri Gundavelli
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [netlmm] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-netlmm-proxymip6-00.txt

Hi Sri,
  I read the new draft and was unfortunately disappointed with the editorial
quality. If you had this as version 2, many people would not have voted for
you   <http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/tsmileys2/01.gif> 

  There are numerous editorial problems, I don't have time to list them,
they start with the abstract. The abstract does not say anything useful on
the protocol described in the document. Remember that reading the abstract
one should have an idea on the solution. I suggest starting with your
sentence:
This specification describes a protocol
   solution for network based mobility management that relies on Mobile
   IPv6 signaling and reuse of home agent functionality.

 
 
You define the acronyms of LMA, MAG, PMA and you never use them afterwards,
is it because you want to make the document longer?
 
Regards,
 
Behcet