Subject: [Mip6] Re: review of draft-ietf-mip6-experimental-messages-01.txt

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 15:12:03 -0700

Hi Francis,

Thanks for the review.

Francis Dupont wrote:

> Comments: some editorial questions:
>  - in abstract page 1: s/header/Header/
>    BTW as MH is the common abbrev Mobility Header should always get the 'H'.
>    This is not clear for Mobility Option but a choice has to be done and
>    applied...

Fixed.

>  - ToC and section 7: s/Acknowledgements/Acknowledgments/

Why? Both are valid. FWIW, RFC 3775 uses "Acknowledgement". :)

>  - section 1 page 3: s/Proxy MIPv6/Proxy Mobile IPv6/

Ok.

>  - the figure in page 3 seems a bit strange because some important and
>    decribed fields are not in it. I believe it is directly from RFC 3775
>    section 6.1 "Mobility Header" which gives only the content of messages,
>    so IMHO this section needs an explicit reference to RFC 3775 6.1.

Added a sentence in section 3.

    The fields described in the message format below follow the Mobility
    Header fields as defined in Section 6.1 of RFC 3775 [2].

Vijay

_______________________________________________
Mip6 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6