Re: [Mobopts] review of draft-irtf-mobopts-mpa-framework-05.txt
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Mobopts] review of draft-irtf-mobopts-mpa-framework-05.txt

Hi Juergen,
Thank you very much for taking time to read the document and sending your thoughtful reviews on this draft <draft-irtf-mobopts-mpa-framework-05.txt>. These review comments will help improve the quality of the draft.
We will take care of the review comments and reduce the size of the document. Please find the answers to some of your suggestions inline. 

Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:

Hi,

I have reviewed <draft-irtf-mobopts-mpa-framework-05.txt> and I have
some issues with the document. I believe the document is not ready
for publication. Given the number of things I have found while reading
the document, I am wondering whether this version of the document has
had sufficient research group review. That said, let me state that I
am not a mobility expert and hence I am reading the document from the
viewpoint of an informed reader, but not as an expert in this field.

a) I would prefer more consistent terminology. For example, the
   document seems to use 'mobile terminal', 'mobile node', 'mobile',
   'terminal' to refer to the same concept. I believe the document
   gains clarity by choosing one term and sticking to it throughout
   the document.


As per you suggestion, we will use common terminology across the document.



b) Similar to a), I had a hard time to deal with the many acronyms
   that are being used in the document and sometimes the acronyms are
   not spelled the same or it seems different acronyms are used to
   refer to the same concept, making lookups harder than necessary.
We will make sure that all the acronyms are spelled out properly and consistently. 


c) The document references IDs that are seem to be in a limbo state,
   most notably the "accompanying document
   ID.ohta-mobopts-mpa-implementation" (last updated July 2007). Some
   of the contents of this ID seems to have been moved into the
   appendix? There is also I-D.taniuchi-netlmm-mpa-proxymipv6 (last
   updated March 2007), which will actually block publication.  I
   think any text related to ProxyMIPv6 should reference RFC 5213
   (which is not referenced at all).
We will replace the reference to the IDs that are expired with the papers that have explained these results. 



d) I found section 8 somewhat weak and not too helpful in order to
   understand the MPA framework itself, which is the main contribution
   of this document. I am actually not sure section 8 is needed in the
   current form since the focus of the document announced at the
   beginning is on the MPA framework. Should section 8 really be part
   of this ID?  If yes, then 8.1.1 and 8.1.2 are probably not
   sufficiently specified, since they essentially refer to a dead (?)
   ID. The section on Proxy MIPv6 probably needs an update to align it
   with RFC 5213. I also find the figures 7-9 somewhat confusing (what
   is the meaning of the *,x,+,- characters?).
We will probably take out Section 8 (Case studies with different mobility protocol) in order to reduce the document size. Moving Section 8 to appendix could be another option. 



e) In general, the document is quite long and takes a while to read. I
   had the feeling that there is also some repetition (for example, I
   think I read several times that DAD is slow or about the advantages
   of using multiple interfaces during handover etc). I guess I would
   have been happier with a shorter document concentrating on the
   framework and either a separate document discussing concrete
   implementations or have _all_ discussions about framework
   implementation experiments in the appendix.
We will go over the document to focus on the framework in the first seven sections. We can also reduce most of the appendix part or get rid of the appendix part completely. 



I am attaching a unified context diff with several editorial nits and
some additional questions placed in [[ ]] brackets where the context
is important to understand the question.
These editorial nits and additional comments/questions are very helpful in generating the next version of the document.
I hope you find this review useful!
Sure, this thorough review and associated comments are very helpful. Thank you again for reviewing the draft. 



/js



Regards
Ashutosh (Draft editor)

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.