Subject: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-netlmm-pmipv6-mib-05.txt (resent???)

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 01:07:58 +0200

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-netlmm-pmipv6-mib-05.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20110527
IETF LC End Date: 20110512
IESG Telechat date: unknown

Summary: Ready

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments:
 - Toc page 2 and 9 page 67: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments

 - 5 page 7: incoherent zip/country order for Japan

 - 5 page 9: pmip6Stats:pmip6BindingRegcounters ->
                                       ^
             pmip6Stats:pmip6BindingRegcounters
  (fortunately it is in a comment, but an ASN.1 comment :-)

 - 5 page 16: reindent pmip6MagProxyCOATable description
 (same pages 39 and 40 for pmip6LmaMinDelayBeforeBCEDelete)

 - 5 page 22 (pmip6MagBLlMnIdentifier): bad wording (the two is for
  the length, not the value).
  same page 28 for pmip6BindingMnLlIdentifier

 - 5 page 24: reformat pmip6MagBLAccessTechnologyType description

 - 5 page 24 (pmip6MagBLTimeRecentlyAccepted):
  acknowledgement -> acknowledgment
  (same page 29 for pmip6BindingMagLinkLocalAddress,
   page 30 for pmip6MissingMnIdentifierOption,
   page 31 for pmip6NotLMAForThisMobileNode, etc)

 - 5 page 31 (pmip6MissingMnIdentifierOption): router. -> router,

 - 5 page 37 (pmip6CounterDiscontinuityTime): viz. ???

 - 5 page 41 (pmip6LmaTimestampValidityWindow): bad wording:
  length of time ???

 - 5 page 50 (pmip6CoreReadOnlyCompliance): missing final '.' in
  description 

 - 6 page 63: extra space in 'pmip6MobileNodeGeneratedTimestampInUse :'

 - 6 page 63: IPSec -> IPsec

 - 10 page 67: presentation should be uniformized.

Regards

[email-masked]

PS: I don't remember if I sent this review, so anyway I resend it.

---

From: "Glenn M. Keeni" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 17:10:16 +0900

Francis,
       Thanks for the detailed review. We are currently
working on the DISCUSSes of the IESG. We will post a
revised draft shortly.

       Glenn

---

From: Sri Gundavelli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 16:28:51 -0700

Hi Jari,

Attached is the TC draft for PMIPv6 ( a new document,   00 version, with
the name draft-ietf-netlmm-pmipv6-tc-mib-00.txt).

Based on the IESG inputs, specifically Dan¹s comment, our Editor (Glenn)
worked out on the TC draft for PMIPv6. Since, this work is tied to the MIB
which was the product of the NETLMM WG,  we are not sure where to post this
doc. *Please advise*,  if this will be an AD sponsored doc, or if we can
post it as a NETLMM draft. The tools would not allow us to post this
document with the current file name.

---
DISCUSS # 3 
           This will require a separate PMIP6-TC-document.
----

Regards
Sri

---

From: "Glenn M. Keeni" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 09:35:46 +0900

Hi,
   To follow-up on Sri's mail, this document does not introduce new
material. The textual conventions have been taken out of
pmipv6-mib-05.txt and put into a new independent pmipv6-tc-mib-00.txt.
The revised pmipv6-mib-06.txt (yet to be posted) refers to 
pmipv6-tc-mib-00.txt.

   Glenn