Subject: [Mip6] Review of draft-ietf-mip6-mipext-advapi-05.txt

From: "T.J. Kniveton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 10:51:13 -0800

Hi,

I have also been asked to review this document. Overall, I found it  
very easy to read and understandable, and reflects good work that  
should move forward. I made a large number of small changes which are  
available in the following file; however, they are mostly just fixed  
typos, rewording, and similar proofreading:

http://www.kniveton.com/tj/specs/draft-ietf-mip6-mipext-advapi-05-tj.txt

(Just diff it from / merge it with the -05 draft).

Other suggestions:

- Make the capitalization of all Options and Headers consistent. For  
example, you might say "Routing Headers" and then "Mobility headers",  
"destination option", "type 2", "Type 2", etc.

- Make "user-level" or "user level" consistent.

- Under section 3, it refers to be C programs. Could the API be  
applicable to other languages? Clearly it is geared toward an unix  
environment, but could it be used also for other languages?

- Also section 3, you say that you are not going to talk about error  
checking in favor of brevity, and that there may be error code  
returns that are not defined here. I am a little uncomfortable with  
this -- error conditions are important, and if the return codes are  
not defined here, where can I find them?

- I checked through all the data structures, as compared to rfc 3775.  
I did not find any errors.

- Page 17, first full paragraph, first sentence "For TCP data . ." --  
The wording before wasn't clear about adding a sticky option. I have  
changed it, but please make sure it does not change the meaning of  
this sentence.

TJ

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

---

From: Samita Chakrabarti <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 11:27:59 -0800

Thanks T,J.

-Samita