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

Ashutosh Dutta <adutta@research.telcordia.com> Mon, 06 April 2009 22:39 UTC

Return-Path: <adutta@research.telcordia.com>
X-Original-To: mobopts@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mobopts@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A70C3A6C8C for <mobopts@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Apr 2009 15:39:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.399, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UDBnT48dnW3E for <mobopts@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Apr 2009 15:39:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from flower.research.telcordia.com (flower.research.telcordia.com [128.96.41.5]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F33F3A67FD for <mobopts@irtf.org>; Mon, 6 Apr 2009 15:39:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [128.96.58.16] ([128.96.58.16]) by flower.research.telcordia.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n36MeDOo009847; Mon, 6 Apr 2009 18:40:19 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <49DA84CE.6010309@research.telcordia.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 18:40:14 -0400
From: Ashutosh Dutta <adutta@research.telcordia.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: draft-irtf-mobopts-mpa-framework@tools.ietf.org, irsg@isi.edu, mobopts@irtf.org, Rajeev Koodli <rajeev_koodli@yahoo.com>, Aaron Falk <falk@bbn.com>, Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
References: <20090406155648.GA21422@elstar.local>
In-Reply-To: <20090406155648.GA21422@elstar.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Mobopts] review of draft-irtf-mobopts-mpa-framework-05.txt
X-BeenThere: mobopts@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobility Optimizations <mobopts.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/mobopts>, <mailto:mobopts-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/mobopts>
List-Post: <mailto:mobopts@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mobopts-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/mobopts>, <mailto:mobopts-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 22:39:26 -0000

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)