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-mipshop-pfmipv6-11.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 2009-09-22/2009-11-30
IETF LC End Date: 2009-09-22
IESG Telechat date: unknown
Summary: Ready
Comments: the style is still at least questionable, I quote an example:
(f) If the F flag is set in the previous step, a bi-directional
tunnel is established between the PMAG and NMAG and packets
destined for the MN are forwarded from the PMAG to the NMAG over
this tunnel. After decapsulation, those packets may be buffered
at the NMAG. If the connection between the N-AN and NMAG has
already been established, those packets may be forwarded towards
the N-AN, which then becomes responsible for them (e.g.,
buffering or delivering depending on the condition of the MN's
attachment); this is access technology specific.
IMHO if abbrevs are fine in figures and can help to keep a document
reasonably not too long, their abuse as in this document is clearly
not a good thing. Now it is a matter of taste.
Regards
francis.dup...@fdupont.fr
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
