[alto] Review of draft-randriamasy-alto-cellular-adresses-00

Yichen Qian <92yichenqian@tongji.edu.cn> Fri, 01 December 2017 02:33 UTC

Return-Path: <92yichenqian@tongji.edu.cn>
X-Original-To: alto@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: alto@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7AFB1272E1 for <alto@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Nov 2017 18:33:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8cfaY98DdwF9 for <alto@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Nov 2017 18:33:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tongji.edu.cn (mailusrsvr1.tongji.edu.cn [202.120.164.61]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DB71812704B for <alto@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Nov 2017 18:33:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.161] (unknown [10.60.139.182]) by mailusersvr1 (Coremail) with SMTP id PaR4ygAXyIx9vyBaNSJfAg--.5932S2; Fri, 01 Dec 2017 10:33:33 +0800 (CST)
From: Yichen Qian <92yichenqian@tongji.edu.cn>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <92FD93CF-0BB6-47D5-9384-B2A86ECEF6B4@tongji.edu.cn>
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2017 10:33:33 +0800
To: Sabine Randriamasy <sabine.randriamasy@nokia-bell-labs.com>, IETF ALTO <alto@ietf.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
X-CM-TRANSID: PaR4ygAXyIx9vyBaNSJfAg--.5932S2
X-Coremail-Antispam: 1UD129KBjvdXoWrKw4kJryUGF1kur1rZw1xGrg_yoWfGrcE9a s3uF18Gr18AF1YqFZIgr1Sqr4xurZrWa4rCF4Fqrs7K34rXanrJa1vyrnrJrn3Gr47ZFs8 WFyDtw1xKa47XjkaLaAFLSUrUUUUUb8apTn2vfkv8UJUUUU8Yxn0WfASr-VFAUDa7-sFnT 9fnUUIcSsGvfJTRUUUb7xYjsxI4VWxJwAYFVCjjxCrM7CY07I20VC2zVCF04k26cxKx2IY s7xG6rWj6s0DM7CIcVAFz4kK6r1j6r18M28lY4IEw2IIxxk0rwA2F7IY1VAKz4vEj48ve4 kI8wA2z4x0Y4vE2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_tr0E3s1l84ACjcxK6xIIjxv20xvEc7CjxVAFwI0_ Cr1j6rxdM28EF7xvwVC2z280aVAFwI0_GcCE3s1l84ACjcxK6I8E87Iv6xkF7I0E14v26r xl6s0DM2AIxVAIcxkEcVAq07x20xvEncxIr21l5I8CrVACY4xI64kE6c02F40Ex7xfMcIj 6xIIjxv20xvE14v26r1j6r18McIj6I8E87Iv67AKxVWUJVW8JwAm72CE4IkC6x0Yz7v_Jr 0_Gr1lF7xvr2IYc2Ij64vIr41l42xK82IYc2Ij64vIr41l42xK82IY6x8ErcxFaVAv8VWx Jr1UJr1l4I8I3I0E4IkC6x0Yz7v_Jr0_Gr1lx2IqxVAqx4xG67AKxVWUJVWUGwC20s026x 8GjcxK67AKxVWUGVWUWwC2zVAF1VAY17CE14v26r1Y6r17MIIYrxkI7VAKI48JMIIF0xvE 2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_Jr0_JF4lIxAIcVC0I7IYx2IY6xkF7I0E14v26r1j6r4UMIIF0xvE42 xK8VAvwI8IcIk0rVWrJr0_WFyUJwCI42IY6I8E87Iv67AKxVWUJVW8JwCI42IY6I8E87Iv 6xkF7I0E14v26r1j6r4UYxBIdaVFxhVjvjDU0xZFpf9x07j189NUUUUU=
X-CM-SenderInfo: qrqrmmmu6w00xjmlhvlgxou0/
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/alto/5_L9raEoLMmWxVjfZbV4OR_IgaI>
Subject: [alto] Review of draft-randriamasy-alto-cellular-adresses-00
X-BeenThere: alto@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Application-Layer Traffic Optimization \(alto\) WG mailing list" <alto.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/alto>, <mailto:alto-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/alto/>
List-Post: <mailto:alto@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:alto-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto>, <mailto:alto-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2017 02:33:41 -0000

Hi Sabine and ALTO working group,

I just reviewed draft-randriamasy-alto-cellular-adresses-00 and below are my comments. Most of them are about the examples given in the draft.

At the begin of section 3, 'The predent draft proposed …' -> 'The present draft proposed …'.

In section 3.2, MNC is defined as a 2-3 digits decimal number without leading zeros. It’s not consistent with the example below 'MNC value 020 stands for Network N2 …'.

Section 3.2 also mentions that ECI is a 7 digits lower-case hex number. While in the third example of section 3.4, 'ecgi:311.481:123480' and 'ecgi:311.481:12348d' only have 6 digits for ECI. 

Another confusion in the third example of section 3.4 is that I think 'ecgi:311.481:12348d' also matches the ECI that starts with the 18 bits 0x12348.

Your feedback is highly appreciated.

Best regards,
Yichen