Subject: Re: [Mobopts] FW: Mobopts review

From: Rajeev Koodli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 10:42:42 -0700

Hello,

I have few more suggestions (editorial) to revise the document.

Regards,

-Rajeev

Abstract:

"To solve the problem, this draft defines nine kinds of L2 abstractions
   in the form of "primitive" to achieve fast handovers in the network.."
                   ^^^^ primitives

1.  Introduction

   In recent years, the execution environment around computers is not
   static and changes dynamically.  Especially, when a mobile node moves
   to a different network, its communication environment considerably
   changes.  For example, in the case of wireless communication,
   parameters such as radio strength largely changes depending on time
   or site.

Replace above paragraph with the following:

RK> Recent years have witnessed rapid proliferation of wireless
networks as well as mobile devices accessing them. Unlike wired
network environments, wireless networks are characterized by
dynamically changing radio conditions, connectivity, and available
bandwidth. 

RK> You may combine the following paragraph with the above to make it a
single paragraph.

   For efficient network communication, it is vital for a protocol layer
   to know or utilize other layer's control information.  Mobile IPv4
   [1] and Mobile IPv6 [2] have been standerdized to support
   communication with mobile nodes.  There are several proposals for
   seamless handovers in IPv6 network such as Fast Handovers for Mobile
   IPv6 (FMIPv6) [3] and Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 (HMIPv6) [4].  In
   FMIPv6, the network layer must know the indication of a handover from
   the link layer in advance to achieve seamless handovers.  However,
   control information exchange between protocol layers is not allowed
                                                           ^^ =>
                                                     typically
                                                 not available

  because each protocol layer is designed independently.

   To solve the problem, this draft defines nine kinds of L2
   abstractions in the form of "primitive" to achieve fast handovers
                                       ^^ primitives
 
   in  the network layer.  This mechanism is called "L3-driven fast
   handovers" because the network layer initiates L2 and L3 handovers by
   using the "primitives".

4.1.  L2-LinkStatus (Type 1)

   The L2-LinkStatus.request primitive is sent to the link layer when an
   upper layer needs the current information of a link.  The L2-
   LinkStatus.request primitive contains the "Network Interface ID"
   parameter (See Section 5.1).
             ^^^^^^^^^^

6.1.  PoA
      ^^^^ Expand PoA

On 7/27/07 1:06 PM, "ext Rajeev Koodli" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> 
> 
> Hello,
> 
> Here is the IRSG review of L2 abstractions ID. I think the comments are
> mostly editorial and very useful in improving the overall quality of the
> document. 
> 
> Thanks John for your review.
> 
> Authors: please take a look and respond.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> -Rajeev
> --
> http://people.nokia.net/~rajeev
> 
> 
> ------ Forwarded Message
> From: ext John L <[email-masked]>
> Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:00:06 -0400 (EDT)
> To: Rajeev Koodli <[email-masked]>
> Cc: Aaron Falk <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Mobopts review
> 
> I've read through draft-irtf-mobopts-l2-abstractions-03, and I find it
> almost but not quite ready for publication.
> 
> Keeping in mind that I am not particularly expert in mobile computing,
> the content seems fine.  It needs a careful copy-edit to fix some
> language problems that are distracting and occasionally ambiguous.  For
> example, page 6 defines PoA as "the attachment point of a mobile node".
> PoA presumably stands for Point of Attachment, and it just seems odd to
> have the abbreviation and definition not match.  More seriously, there are
> places where the complexity of English syntax leads to confusion.  For
> example, on page 3 the last sentence of the first paragraph reads "a
> layer can evenly communicate with each other", which I think is trying to
> say that the communication between layers is symmetrical, but I'm not
> sure.  A careful copy edit, in consultation with the authors to be sure
> the ambiguities are resolved correctly, should solve this.
> 
> Appendix B appears to contain two paper examples and one report of an
> experiment.  They're all fine, but it would be helpful to explain either
> why they tested the third example or why they didn't test the first two.
> 
> None of these problems are major, and I expect all could be fixed in one
> more editing pass.
> 
> Regards,
> John Levine, [email-masked], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for
> Dummies",
> Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor
> "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.
> 
> ------ End of Forwarded Message
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mobopts mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mobopts

-- 
http://people.nokia.net/~rajeev

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