Re: [Gen-art] re-review of draft-ietf-mipshop-pfmipv6-11.txt
Hi Jari and Francis, I understand that some abbreviations familiar to me are not necessarily so to others. In the latest document (v12), MN and LMA are spelled out as "mobile node" and "local mobility anchor" as many as possible. Also, the itemized descriptions for Figures 2 and 3 in Section 4.1 use more unabbreviated words. Apologize for this delay, but the latest version was submitted earlier as v12. Hope that the readability has improved even a bit... Regards, -- Hidetoshi Jari Arkko wrote: > Francis, > >> => BTW I am familiar with most of these abbrevs (I worked a lot in Mobile >> IPv6 area) but it is just a matter of taste: the abuse of abbrevs is >> IMHO a bad style for a written text. And this includes the "use English >> words the first time, introduce abbrevs and use them in place of plain >> English after". > > I agree, by the way. We can, of course, WR (Write) TXT (Text) with ABs > (Abbreviations) but it just produces HTRT (Hard To Read Text). Its so > much easier to just say "the mobile node" or "the home agent" than use > one of the abbreviations. > > (And I'm not demanding this conversion be done for the current document. > But I find many of the documents that I see a little overusing the > abbreviations.) > > Jari > > > > ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
Re: [Gen-art] re-review of draft-ietf-mipshop-pfmipv6-11.txt
Francis, => BTW I am familiar with most of these abbrevs (I worked a lot in Mobile IPv6 area) but it is just a matter of taste: the abuse of abbrevs is IMHO a bad style for a written text. And this includes the "use English words the first time, introduce abbrevs and use them in place of plain English after". I agree, by the way. We can, of course, WR (Write) TXT (Text) with ABs (Abbreviations) but it just produces HTRT (Hard To Read Text). Its so much easier to just say "the mobile node" or "the home agent" than use one of the abbreviations. (And I'm not demanding this conversion be done for the current document. But I find many of the documents that I see a little overusing the abbreviations.) Jari ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
Re: [Gen-art] re-review of draft-ietf-mipshop-pfmipv6-11.txt
In your previous mail you wrote: Now I see what gave you a pain... A series of unfamiliar abbreviations may hamper readability. Please take a look at the following style. The key words below are spelled out: => BTW I am familiar with most of these abbrevs (I worked a lot in Mobile IPv6 area) but it is just a matter of taste: the abuse of abbrevs is IMHO a bad style for a written text. And this includes the "use English words the first time, introduce abbrevs and use them in place of plain English after". Please note it is a matter of taste and I am not against the use of abbrevs, just against the abuse. Regards francis.dup...@fdupont.fr PS: I apologize for the delay (travel, mail server crash, ...) ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
Re: [Gen-art] re-review of draft-ietf-mipshop-pfmipv6-11.txt
Hello Francis, Now I see what gave you a pain... A series of unfamiliar abbreviations may hamper readability. Please take a look at the following style. The key words below are spelled out: MN -> mobile node P/N-AN -> previous/new access network P/NMAG-> previous/new MAG etc. If the revised style is acceptable, we will revise the whole document as such. === (a) The mobile node detects that a handover is imminent and reports the identifier of itself (MN ID) and the New Access Point Identifier (New AP ID) [RFC5568] to which the mobile node is most likely to move. The MN ID could be the NAI or a Link Layer Address (LLA), or any other suitable identifier. This step is access technology specific. In some cases, the previous access network (P-AN) will determine which AP ID the mobile node is moving to. (b) The previous access network, to which the mobile node is currently attached, indicates the handover of the mobile node to the previous mobile access gateway (PMAG). Detailed definition and specification of this message are outside the scope of this document. (c) The previous MAG sends the Handover Initiate (HI) message to the new mobile access gateway (NMAG). The HI message MUST have the P flag set and include the MN ID, the HNP(s) and the address of the local mobility anchor (LMA) that is currently serving the mobile node. If there is a valid (non-zero) MN Link-layer Identifier (MN LL-ID), that information MUST also be included. With some link layers, the MN Link-local Address IID (MN LLA- IID) can also be included (see Section 6.2.3). (d) The new MAG sends the Handover Acknowledge (HAck) message back to the previous MAG with the P flag set. (e) If it is preferred that the timing of buffering or forwarding should be later than step (c), the new MAG may optionally request the previous MAG at a later and appropriate time to buffer or forward packets by setting U flag [RFC5568] or F flag in the HI message, respectively. (f) If the F flag is set in the previous step, a bi-directional tunnel is established between the previous MAG and new MAG and packets destined for the mobile node are forwarded from the previous MAG to the new MAG over this tunnel. After decapsulation, those packets may be buffered at the new MAG. If the connection between the new access network and new MAG has already been established, those packets may be forwarded towards the new access network, which then becomes responsible for them (e.g., buffering or delivering depending on the condition of the mobile node's attachment); this is access technology specific. (g) The mobile node undergoes handover to the new access network. (h) The mobile node establishes a physical link connection with the new access network (e.g., radio channel assignment), which in turn triggers the establishment of a link-layer connection between the new access network and new MAG if not yet established. An IP layer connection setup may be performed at this time (e.g., PPP IPv6CP) or at a later time (e.g., stateful or stateless auto address configuration). This step can be a substitute for the Unsolicited Neighbor Advertisement (UNA) in [RFC5568]. If the new MAG acquires a valid new MN LL-ID via the new access network and a valid old MN LL-ID from the previous MAG at step (c), these IDs SHOULD be compared to determine whether the same interface is used before and after handover. When the connection between the mobile node and new MAG is PPP and the same interface is used for the handover, the new MAG SHOULD confirm that the same interface identifier is used for the mobile node's link-local address (this is transferred from previous MAG using the MN LLA-IID option at step (c), and sent to the mobile node during the Configure-Request/Ack exchange). (i) The new MAG starts to forward packets destined for the mobile node via the new access network. (j) The uplink packets from the mobile node are sent to the new MAG via the new access network and the new MAG forwards them to the previous MAG. The previous MAG then sends the packets to the LMA that is currently serving the mobile node. (k) The new MAG sends the Proxy Binding Update (PBU) to the LMA, whose address is provided in (c). Steps (k) and (l) are not part of the fast handover procedure, but shown for reference. (l) The LMA sends back the Proxy Binding Acknowledgment (PBA) to the new MAG. From this time on, the packets to/from the mobile node go through the new MAG
[Gen-art] re-review of draft-ietf-mipshop-pfmipv6-11.txt
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