Subject: [DMM] Fw: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dmm-requirements-14

From: "H Anthony Chan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 17:33:13 -0600

In response to comment from Russ Housley, the abstract is elaborated a little bit and acronyms have been checked. 
H Anthony Chan

From: H Anthony Chan 
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 4:49 PM
To: Russ Housley ; [email-masked] 
Cc: IESG ; IETF Gen-ART 
Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dmm-requirements-14

Thanks.

Regarding the first comment, the abstract can be elaborated a little more as follows:

   This document defines the requirements for Distributed Mobility
   Management (DMM) at the network layer.  The hierarchical structure in
   traditional wireless networks has led primarily to centrally deployed
   mobility anchors.  As some wireless networks are evolving away from
   the hierarchical structure, it can be useful have a distributed model
   for mobility management in which traffic does not need to traverse
   centrally deployed mobility anchors far from the optimal route.

Regarding the second comments on defining the acronyms:
It appears there are 3 such instances: EPC, 3GPP, WLAN. All other acronyms have been properly defined. 

EPC needs to be spelled out before the acronym appears.
3GPP was spelled out in Section 3.1 but was also used in Section 1. It needs to move to Section 1. 
WLAN is also spelled out. 

H Anthony Chan

From: Russ Housley 
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 1:51 PM
To: [email-masked] 
Cc: IESG ; IETF Gen-ART 
Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dmm-requirements-14

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-dmm-requirements-14
Reviewer: Russ Housley
Review Date: 2014-02-10
IETF LC End Date: 2014-02-17
IESG Telechat date: Unknown

Summary:  Ready for publication.

Major Concerns:  None.

Minor Concerns:  None.

Other Comments:

I think that the Abstract could be more polished.  Some mention of the
anchor point seems desirable.

Spell out acronyms the first time they are used. EPC is an example that
needs to be expanded.