[Autoconf] Re: Review of draft-ietf-autoconf-manetarch-07

["Ian Chakeres" <[e-mail]>]

Thank you very much for the detailed review. I will work to integrate
your comments in my local revision.

I plan to submit an update based on the feedback recently received
when I-D submission opens again.

Thanks.
Ian Chakeres


On Nov 26, 2007 8:46 PM, Ulrich Herberg
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> some minor comments on the MANET architecture draft:
> ----------------------
> typos:
> ----------------------
>
>   -- page 10 (section 4.2.2), paragraph 4: "In MANETs` with SBI...";
> remove the genitive apostrophe
>   -- page 12 (section 5.1), paragraph 3: "...may be assigned to the
> MANET routers' non-MANET interfaces(s)" ; remove first s of interfaces
>   -- same paragraph: the prefix p should be either upper-case or
> lower-case but not mixed
>   -- page 13 (section 5.2), paragraph "unique prefixes": "this
> requirements" -- wrong plural; should be "these requirements" or "this
> requirement"
>   -- same paragraph, "One way to achieve this is /128 ..."; I would
> rather say "One way to achieve this is _using_ /128 [...] prefixes"...
> as I am not a native English speaker, I am not sure about that :-)
>   -- same paragraph, last line: MANETs instead of MANET
>   -- page 15 (section 7), paragraph 2: "or two network can share...";
> network should be in plural
>   -- page 16 (section 8.2), paragraph 2: "to discuss the number of
> MANET router to.."; router should be in plural
>
>
> ------------------
> other issues
> ------------------
>   -- maybe I would combine section 6 and 7. They seem to belong
> together in a certain way
>   -- figure 5: maybe I just didn't see it, but I cannot find a
> reference to this figure
>   -- figure 6: I would definitely add some more explanations to this
> figure (which itself is very good) in the paragraph above of it: it
> could be explained why a /62 prefix is used in the delegated prefix,
> otherwise one could think it's a typo. Also the loopback interface is
> not explained in the text. One could maybe also add in the text that
> the address of the MANET interface of is not part of a subnet, or
> formulated in another way: the MANET is not a subnet. In the second
> paragraph of section 5.1, one could relate these nodes with the figure
> (to help the reader understand which nodes in the figure are exposed
> to the MANET characteristics and which not)
>   -- section 8.1. "one or more IP hops - MANET, _site_,...". Is the
> site scope defined? Hasn't it been declared deprecated in RFC3879?
>   --  same section, last sentence. I do not understand this sentence;
> why do you suddenly talk about AS, when you did never before or after
> this sentence?
>
> Regards,
> Ulrich
>


_______________________________________________
Autoconf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf