Hi, >Thanks for your review! No, there is no LC planned >for this document. In fact, we already dealt with it >in the IESG, and uncovered one technical issue that >needs to be addressed. > >I would ask the chairs to look into these issues >and list changes, if any, so that I can take them >into account in the RFC Editor notes. For the >most part I believe the RFC Editor can deal with >the editorial stuff (and I can make them aware >of these comments), so focus on the technical >stuff.
OK, I'm commenting on the technical issues: >Francis Dupont kirjoitti: >> >> 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-nemo-terminology-06.txt >> Reviewer: Francis Dupont >> Review Date: 2006/12/1 >> IETF LC End Date: >> IESG Telechat date: 2006/11/30 >> >> Summary: Ready with nits >> >> Comments: I have many comments about language/wording, some have >> a technical impact but none is really critical: >> - in 1 page 4, 3.2 page 10, 4 page 11 (twice), 5.1 page 13 (twice), >> 5.2 page 13: e.g. or i.e. are not followed by a comma. >> - in 2 page 5, page 6 (twice), 2.1 page 7, 2.2 page 7 (twice), 6.8 page >> 18: the word subnetwork should be used in place of subnet in text >> (I propose to keep the abbrev in figures but to use the full term in >> text). >> - in 2 page 6 (technical): from the Access Router -> from an Access >> Router. >> - in 2 page 6, 2.3 page 7 (always twice): IMHO "one or more" introduces >> a plural (ask the RFC editor to fix this). >> - in 2.8 page 8 (technical): the wording seems to exclude CNs which >> are on the same mobile network (!= fixed or *another* mobile). >> Is it the intention? No, it's not the intention. The definitions reads: 2.8. Correspondent Node (CN) Any node that is communicating with one or more MNNs. A CN could be either located within a fixed network or within another mobile network, and could be either fixed or mobile. So, we should just replace the word "another" with "a" in front of "mobile network". >> - in 3 page 9: some sort -> some kind? >> - in 3* pages 9 and 10: LFN, VMN and LMN are a partition of MNN. IMHO >> the wording should be a bit clearer, for instance with an "either" >> .. "or" >> construct? Would you clarify which is the sentence that should be clarified ? Please also not that the term "MNN: is defined in 2.7, so that definition by itself might be enough to clarify your concern ? >> - in 4.1 page 11 (technical): there is no reason that the topology is a >> tree so the wording must be changed in order to explain how we can get >> a hierarchy from any interconnection graph. For this point IMHO the >> magic >> words are "spanning tree" with the Internet as the root but things >> can be more complex about the prefix delegation and/or with >> multi-homing. The reason why this could become a tree is that the visiting MR must obtain an address on the parent NEMO. However, the child NEMO can also be a parent NEMO over another path (says that a MNN in a sub-NEMO is an AR adversiting a prefix, so the MR from the parent-NEMO may get an address from the sub-NEMO. So, nested topologies could become very complex, and would bring some interesting issues. This could bring loops, but it is not the intention to discuss this in this document. I'm not sure the term "spanning tree" would fit in here. >> - in 4.4/4.7 pages 11/12: the opposite of "parent" is "child", not >> "subservient". Is there a good reason to avoid child-NEMO/child-MR >> terms? I cannot recall the exact discussion - it is somewhere in the archives - the term "subservient" was proposed by Erik Nordmark. Since the visiting NEMO obtains an address and an access from the parent, we conclude the term "subservient" would be a better catch. >> - in 5.1 page 13, 5.3 page 14, 5.4 page 14: "either" is for exclusive or >> and is used in situations where a standard inclusive or is better. OK, we should just remove the word "either" if in English it has a definite exclusive meaning (I leave that to the RFC editor, then). >> - in 7.4 page 19: the word "necessary" is far too strong and surely not >> necessary... Well, from a usage and deployment point of view, everyone agree that optimizations are necessary. The reason why the solution is not optimzed yet is "security" as you know. So, optimizations are necessary from a performance point of view, but it's not clear yet if this would compromise security, in which case optimizations may not be provided. Anyway, I propose to change "necessary" with "performance". >> - in authors' addresses page 25: please use the French (and only correct >> in these cases) position for the postal code (aka zip code) which is >> supposed to have only a local (here pour nous) meaning. This is an xml issue. The RFC editor will make sure that the address is "78153 Le Chesnay" and not the other way round. I >> Not my comment: in 2.10 page 8: the abbrev CE (Correspondent Entity) >> collides with already heavily used CE (Customer Equipment). CNR was >> proposed (cf. IESG evaluation comment logs in the tracker). There will always be collisions with other abbreviations, and we are aware of this (the RO design team had a long discussion on this). But here, the context between "Correspondent Entity" and "Customer Equipment" is not the same, so I don't consider this as a problem. In addition, consistency with other NEMO terms, and other NEMO documents is important. The term CE is used in draft-ietf-nemo-ro-problem-statement which is already approved by the IESG. Thanks for the comments, Francis. Thierry. _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
