Dear authors,
I've read the draft and I find it quite useful, thanks!
I've have some minor comments to add to which have been already said on
the ML:
- About sections 3.1 and 3.2: To me, all 3.2.x sections seems pretty
much the same than 3.1.x. IMHO, it'd be better to just point out the
differences or describe only an abstract architecture and the describe
the minor particularities of each.
- About Req. 6: To me this is completely solution space and it
shouldn't be a requirement. Besides, it makes C2C-CC and CALM differ in
terms of NEMO RO requirements, which is not very nice, IMHO, for this
kind of document (standard wide).
Thanks!
Carlos
--
Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano http://www.netcoms.net
GPG FP: D29B 0A6A 639A A561 93CA 4D55 35DC BA4D D170 4F67
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
WEEDEV 2009: 2nd Workshop on Experimental Evaluation and
Deployment Experiences on Vehicular networks
http://www.weedev.org/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Esta parte del mensaje =?ISO-8859-1?Q?est=E1?= firmada digitalmente
_______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list MEXT at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext