Dear Sean. Thanks for your review, reply inline And I have updated the darft to versioin 11, please kindly help to check it again
2009/9/7 Sean Turner <turn...@ieca.com>: > 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-mip4-generic-notification-message-09.txt > Reviewer: Sean Turner > Review Date: 2009-09-07 > IETF LC End Date: 2009-09-08 > IESG Telechat date: N/A > > Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits > that should be fixed before publication. > > I have to admit that following along in section 4.3.*, 4.4.*, and 4.5.* > is a little tough for somebody who is not steeped in the mip4 WG. I > don't think it is avoidable, but I am leaning somewhat on the WG/authors > to ensure it all hangs together (it is the -09 version after all). ==> Thanks for understanding. > > 4: The follow sentence is awkward: "The MN and HA MUST maintain the > following information, the FA also need maintain both HA's and MN's > direction the below information:". Should it be "FA also needs to > maintain both the HA's ...? ==> Updated > > 4.1 and 4.2: I assume the "Type (TBD)" will be assigned by IANA, but > should there be an RFC Editor's note added to indicate as much? ==> Updated (To be assigned by IANA) > > 4.5.4: r/by The MN-FA/by the MN-FA ==> Updated > > 5: r/. for/. For ==> Updated > > 5: r/mechanism also./mechanism. ==> Updated > > 5: The last sentence before the list has 3 values, but the sentence says > theres are four values reserved. Is it 3 or 4? ==> Updated 3 > > 7: > > OLD: > > The author appreciate the efforts of Ahmad Muhanna in detail reviewing > of this document, lots of text have been contributed by his suggestions. > The author thank the discussion from Kent Leung, Peng Yang and Peter > McCann et al. in the development of this document. > > NEW: > > The authors appreciate the efforts of Ahmad Muhanna for his detailed > review of this document and his many contributions to the text of this > document. The authors also want to thank Kent Leung, Peng Yang, and > Peter McCann et al. for their help developing this document. ==> Updated, thanks, > > 8: r:/It require that this message/It requires that these messages > ? There are two messages defined correct? ==> Updated > > 8.1: r/This document require/This document requires ==> Updated > > 8.1: r/two peer node/two peer nodes ==> Updated > > There are a number of places where ". if" should be replaced by ". If" > and ". if" should be replaced by ". If". > > So this might be considered nit picking, but normally when I start a > sentence of with "If ....," right after the comma there's a "then ...." ==> Updated thanks again best regards, -Hui > > > Cheers, > > spt > > > > > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
