[Mobopts] Request to publish draft-irtf-mobopts-l2-abstractions-04 as an IRTF RFC

[Aaron Falk <[e-mail]>]

Dear RFC Editor-

Please publish draft-irtf-mobopts-l2-abstractions-04 as an  
Experimental IRTF-stream RFC.  The IRSG has reviewed this document  
and approved it for publication.  Please include Rajeev Koodli  
<[e-mail]> on all correspondence relating to  
publication of this document.  Details of the review process follow  
below.

Also, please make the two small edits are requested below.

Regards,

--Aaron Falk
   IRTF Chair

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Rajeev Koodli <[e-mail]>
> Date: November 20, 2007 8:53:41 PM EST
> To: ext Aaron Falk <[e-mail]>
> Cc: <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> Subject: IRSG review of draft-irtf-mobopts-l2-abstractions-04.txt  
> completed
>
>
> Hi Aaron,
>
> This note is to formally request you to advance the MobOpts RG ID  
> "Unified
> L2 Abstractions for L3-Driven fast Handover" [1] to IESG for their "no
> circumvention" review prior to its publication as an Experimental RFC.
>
> The detailed IRSG review (of version 03) and subsequent acceptance (of
> version 04) by John Levine are available at
>
> http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mobopts/current/msg00873.html
>
> The above review and the IRSG poll input are documented at the tracker
> http://www3.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac (which is currently down  
> for me
> to provide the exact ticket #)
>
> Since this document represents the consensus of the MobOpts RG, I  
> request
> that the following IESG note (taken from [2]) be included:
>
> "This document is not an IETF Internet Standard.  It represents
> the consensus of the MobOpts Research Group of the Internet Research
> Task Force.  It may be considered for standardization by the
> IETF in the future."
>
> The IRSG poll provided input [3] which could be incorporated as RFC  
> Editor
> notes.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Rajeev
> -- 
> http://people.nokia.net/~rajeev
>
>
>
>
> [1]: http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-irtf-mobopts-l2- 
> abstractions-04.txt
>
> [2]: http://www.irtf.org/chairfiles/draft-irtf-rfcs-01.html#iesg-notes
>
> [3]:
>>
>> Vote: Ready to publish
>>
>> Short Review:
>>
>> The document is very easy to read and understand.  I have worked  
>> in this
>> area (though more focused on L3-L4 interaction than L3-L2) and I  
>> think it
>> is a useful and needed contribution.
>>
>> The diagrams are clear and the appendices provide useful supporting
>> material.
>>
>> The "Architectural Considerations" section is a good idea for a  
>> document
>> like this, and building off the IAB document was also a great idea.
>>
>> I didn't quite buy the logic on number 5, and suggest a different  
>> explanation
>> instead of:
>>>   [5]   Proposals must demonstrate that effective congestion  
>>> control is
>>>         maintained.
>>>
>>>         Since this mechanism is coupled to the IP layer, and not
>>>         directly to the transport layer, the proposed mechanism does
>>>         not directly affect congestion control.
>>
>> I think it would be more correct to say:
>> Since the proposed inter-layer communications are local within a  
>> host,
>> and not across a network, they don't directly raise congestion  
>> control
>> concerns.  The response of individual protocols to these  
>> notifications
>> should ensure that effective congestion control is maintained, but  
>> those
>> instantiations are outside the scope of this document.
>>
>> Grammar/Spelling:
>>
>> "utilize other layer's control" ->
>> "utilize other layers' control" ?
>
>
>


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