[Mobopts] FW: Mobopts review

Rajeev Koodli <rajeev.koodli@nokia.com> Fri, 27 July 2007 20:13 UTC

Return-path: <mobopts-bounces@irtf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IEWBr-0005Ii-0L; Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:13:35 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IEWBq-0005Ia-6A for mobopts@irtf.org; Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:13:34 -0400
Received: from smtp.nokia.com ([131.228.20.171] helo=mgw-ext12.nokia.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IEWBo-0005hL-No for mobopts@irtf.org; Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:13:34 -0400
Received: from esebh107.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh107.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.143.143]) by mgw-ext12.nokia.com (Switch-3.2.5/Switch-3.2.5) with ESMTP id l6RK6sSV001538; Fri, 27 Jul 2007 23:06:56 +0300
Received: from daebh101.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.241.35.111]) by esebh107.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 27 Jul 2007 23:06:55 +0300
Received: from daebe103.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.241.35.24]) by daebh101.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:06:38 -0500
Received: from 10.241.59.106 ([10.241.59.106]) by daebe103.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.241.35.24]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Fri, 27 Jul 2007 20:06:35 +0000
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.4.060510
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 13:06:52 -0700
From: Rajeev Koodli <rajeev.koodli@nokia.com>
To: tera@ics.keio.ac.jp
Message-ID: <C2CF9E6C.1483F%rajeev.koodli@nokia.com>
Thread-Topic: Mobopts review
Thread-Index: AcfQiawc6nxDKjx8EdyNZwAWy5YJpw==
In-Reply-To: <20070727154238.L14963@simone.iecc.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Jul 2007 20:06:38.0740 (UTC) FILETIME=[A4354540:01C7D089]
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 5a9a1bd6c2d06a21d748b7d0070ddcb8
Cc: ext John L <johnl@iecc.com>, "mobopts@irtf.org" <mobopts@irtf.org>
Subject: [Mobopts] FW: Mobopts review
X-BeenThere: mobopts@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobility Optimizations <mobopts.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mobopts>, <mailto:mobopts-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:mobopts@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mobopts-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mobopts>, <mailto:mobopts-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: mobopts-bounces@irtf.org


Hello,

Here is the IRSG review of L2 abstractions ID. I think the comments are
mostly editorial and very useful in improving the overall quality of the
document. 

Thanks John for your review.

Authors: please take a look and respond.

Regards,

-Rajeev
--
http://people.nokia.net/~rajeev


------ Forwarded Message
From: ext John L <johnl@iecc.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:00:06 -0400 (EDT)
To: Rajeev Koodli <rajeev.koodli@nokia.com>
Cc: Aaron Falk <falk@bbn.com>
Subject: Mobopts review

I've read through draft-irtf-mobopts-l2-abstractions-03, and I find it
almost but not quite ready for publication.

Keeping in mind that I am not particularly expert in mobile computing,
the content seems fine.  It needs a careful copy-edit to fix some
language problems that are distracting and occasionally ambiguous.  For
example, page 6 defines PoA as "the attachment point of a mobile node".
PoA presumably stands for Point of Attachment, and it just seems odd to
have the abbreviation and definition not match.  More seriously, there are
places where the complexity of English syntax leads to confusion.  For
example, on page 3 the last sentence of the first paragraph reads "a
layer can evenly communicate with each other", which I think is trying to
say that the communication between layers is symmetrical, but I'm not
sure.  A careful copy edit, in consultation with the authors to be sure
the ambiguities are resolved correctly, should solve this.

Appendix B appears to contain two paper examples and one report of an
experiment.  They're all fine, but it would be helpful to explain either
why they tested the third example or why they didn't test the first two.

None of these problems are major, and I expect all could be fixed in one
more editing pass.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for
Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor
"More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.

------ End of Forwarded Message


_______________________________________________
Mobopts mailing list
Mobopts@irtf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mobopts