Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of IETF LC draft-ietf-nemo-multihoming-issues-07.txt

From: Miguel Garcia <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 13:45:14 +0300

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-nemo-multihoming-issues-07.txt
Reviewer: Miguel Garcia <[email-masked]>
Review Date:  2007-06-04
IETF LC End Date: 2007-06-05

Summary:  This draft is ready for publication as an Informational RFC.

Comments: The document is well written and easy to understand. I just 
have a few nits.

Nits:
- Section 1, second paragraph. The last sentence in this paragraph spans
across 6 lines and lacks readability. It should be improved.

- Section 1, first set of bullet points. There seems to be strange
characters at the end of a sentence, or is it an arrow?

    o  multiple global prefixes are available in the mobile network.-->

- Acronyms: The acronym MNP is first used in Section 1, 5th paragraph.
However, it is not expanded there, but it should. Expand the acronym AR
in Figure 1. Expadn W-PAN in Example 2 in Section 3.1.

- Double reference. In Section 4.1 there is a double cross reference to
reference [8]. I assume this is an error:

  "These are also discussed in [8] and [8] by the Shim6 WG. "
                               ^^^     ^^^

- Suggestion: add a informative reference to DHCPv6 in the last sentence
of Section 2.

- IDnits reports a number of outdated references, probably due to new 
updates while this document was frozen and progressing in the process. 
It also reports some Down references, but they are not applicable, 
because idnits considers the intended status is "Proposed Standard" 
rather than Informational.

/Miguel

--
Miguel A. Garcia           tel:+358-50-4804586
Nokia Siemens Networks     Helsinki, Finland

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 14:45:49 +0200

Dear Miguel,

Thanks for the comments. Please find my answers inline.

On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 13:45:14 +0300

>across 6 lines and lacks readability. It should be improved.

OK. This is a pure wording modification. Here is my proposed
modification (I took the freedom to expand on the mentioned use case).

=== OLD ===

Scenarios illustrated in [6] demonstrate that providing a permanent
access to mobile networks such as vehicles typically require the use of
several interfaces and technologies since the mobile network may be
moving in distant geographical locations where different access
technologies are provided and governed by distinct access control
policies.

=== NEW ===

Scenarios illustrated in [6] demonstrate that providing a permanent
access to mobile networks typically require the use of several
interfaces and technologies. For example, this is particularly useful
for ITS (Intelligent Transport Systems) applications since vehicles are
moving across distant geographical locations. Access would be provided
through different access technologies (e.g. Wimax, Wifi, 3G) and through
different access operators (e.g. cellular operator, motorway operator,
gas stations).

>    o  multiple global prefixes are available in the mobile network.-->

This is a remaining xml typo. "-->" to be removed.

>in Figure 1. Expadn W-PAN in Example 2 in Section 3.1.

Note MNP is defined in the NEMO Terminology doc which is mentioned
in the first sentence of the introduction. Do you think it's necessary
to mention the documents each time a new term is introduced ? Or, we
may add a "Terminology" section where we would explicitly say that MR,
MNP, etc are mentioned in these docs.

OK for W-PAN to be expanded to "Wireless Personal Area Network".

>  "These are also discussed in [8] and [8] by the Shim6 WG. "

OK, these were to separate drafts that where later merged into a single
Shim6 doc.

>- Suggestion: add a informative reference to DHCPv6 in the last sentence

OK.

>rather than Informational.

OK, and thanks again for reading the doc.

Regards,
Thierry

---

From: Miguel Garcia <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 16:21:02 +0300

Hi:

Inline comments.

> different access operators (e.g. cellular operator, motorway operator,

Very good.

> MNP, etc are mentioned in these docs.

It should be expanded. I think the RFC Editor always expands the first 
occurrence of an acronym, so if you don't do it, the RFC Editor will do it.

Also... related to this... I noticed that you mentioned NEMO and Shim6 
WGs in the drafts. In general, I don't think RFCs should be mentioning 
names of working groups, because the RFC becomes outdated when the WG 
ceases. However, I understand that, in this case, it is very hard to 
avoid mentioning NEMO and Shim6. But still I would like to mention in 
case you can think of an appropriate solution that wouldn't make the RFC 
outdated in a few years.

/Miguel

-- 
Miguel A. Garcia           tel:+358-50-4804586
Nokia Siemens Networks     Espoo, Finland

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 15:27:27 +0200

>case you can think of an appropriate solution that wouldn't make the RFC 

Nothing to do with this present draft, but something to consider when
it comes to the RFC editor for all RFCs ?: 

I think it's a pity WG names are not specificied in the title page of
RFCs. This may be fine for IETFers, but many people outside the IETF
can't make the link between a draft they had in their hands, and the
RFC. 

Some people may be very much aware of a WG name, but not with the exact
titles of the document produced by this group. But there is no
possibility to search through the RFC by specifying a WG name.

Regards,
Thierry

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 16:48:35 +0300

(trimming Cc line)

Thierry Ernst wrote:
> Some people may be very much aware of a WG name, but not with 
> the exact titles of the document produced by this group. But 
> there is no possibility to search through the RFC by specifying 
> a WG name.

Actually, there is: datatracker.ietf.org allows you to enter WG 
name and select "RFC Published" as state.

Granted, most folks probably won't find it, and it's not
exactly user-friendly (e.g. you have to click the "DETAIL"
button to see the RFC number, and there's no link to the
actual RFC file).

Best regards,
Pasi

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 01:58:43 +0800

Thierry,

> possibility to search through the RFC by specifying a WG name.

There is, at least for current WGs. For instance,
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/nemo shows all the RFCs
for NEMO.

Basically, the metadata about where this has come
from exists for most RFCs; new tools that could
use that information in innovative ways could
be built. Look at http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3544
as an example.

In any case, I think the names mentioned in this
document are quite OK, because of the nature
of the document.

Jari