[Mobopts] FW: Draft-irtf-mobopts-l2-abstractions

[Rajeev Koodli <rajeev.koodli at nokia.com>]

------ Forwarded Message
From: ext John L <johnl at iecc.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 22:08:31 -0400 (EDT)
To: Rajeev Koodli <rajeev.koodli at nokia.com>
Cc: "mobopts at irtf.org" <mobopts at irtf.org>, <irsg at isi.edu>, ext Fumio Teraoka
<tera at ics.keio.ac.jp>
Subject: Re: Draft-irtf-mobopts-l2-abstractions

This version is better.  It's OK with me to publish.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl at iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for
Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor
"More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.


On Thu, 6 Sep 2007, Rajeev Koodli wrote:

>
>
> Hi John,
>
> I believe the authors have addressed your review comments.
> Could you kindly take a look at the following revised version and let us
> know if we could move forward with publishing this ID?
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-irtf-mobopts-l2-abstractions-04.txt
>
> Thank you.
>
>
> -Rajeev
>
>>
>> ------ Forwarded Message
>> From: ext John L <johnl at iecc.com>
>> Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:00:06 -0400 (EDT)
>> To: Rajeev Koodli <rajeev.koodli at nokia.com>
>> Cc: Aaron Falk <falk at bbn.com>
>> 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, johnl at iecc.com, 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
>> Mobopts at irtf.org
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mobopts
>
>

Regards,
John Levine, johnl at iecc.com, 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
Mobopts at irtf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mobopts