[16NG] Re: review of the new revision (ipv6 over ipcs)

Hi Jari,

Responses inline:

On 1/23/07 1:04 PM, "ext Jari Arkko" <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:

> Basavaraj, all
> 
> I reviewed the new version of this spec, and
> I'm generally quite happy with it. I found three
> small remaining issues which are listed below:
>>          +-----+   CID1    +-----+          +-----------+
>>          | MS1 |----------/| BS1 |----------|     AR    |-----[Internet
>> 
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-16ng-ipv6-over-ipv6cs-06#ref-Internet>>>
]
>>          +-----+         / +-----+          +-----------+
>>             .           /        ____________
>>             .     CIDn /        ()__________()
>>          +-----+      /            L2 Tunnel
>>          | MSn |-----/
>>          +-----+
>> 
>> 
>>    Figure 5: The IPv6 AR is separate from the BS, which acts as a bridge
>>   
> The part about the BS acting as a bridge seems surprising.
> Is this really the case? A standard bridge function?

I did'nt mean bridge from the "standard bridge function" definition. I will
delete it from the document. Basically the BS is an L1/L2 entity, but I do
not believe I will not to elaborate on that.

> 
>>  This
>>  section presents a model for the last mile link, i.e. the link to
>>  which MSs attach themselves.
> I would remove this sentence. You need to explain
> how the link looks like from an IP perspective.
> And I think you are doing that. Whether there
> is a distributed or integrated BS/AR at the other
> end is really not a key issue.

Okay. Will work on this text as suggested.

> 
>>  IEEE
>>    802.16 also defines a secondary management connection that can be
>>    used for host configuration.  However support for secondary
>>    management connections is not mandatory.  A transport connection has
>>    the advantage of it being used for host configuration as well as for
>>    user data.
> Are you specifying something about the use of the
> management connections? If not, take it out.
>

Not really specifying anything w.r.t the management connection. This came up
during discussion with Alex Petrescu and I added it just for the sake of
completeness. Within the scope of this I-D, the management connection has no
relevance. I can take it out.

>> Each MS belongs to
>>    a different link.  No two MSs belong to the same link.
> Duplication. Remove the first sentence.
>

Okay. Editorial fix.

Will submit a revised version with these changes.

-Raj

> Jari
> 

_______________________________________________
16NG mailing list
16NG@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng