Re: [multimob] I-D Action: draft-ietf-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast-04.txt

Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com> Wed, 19 March 2014 22:30 UTC

Return-Path: <stig@venaas.com>
X-Original-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: multimob@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D553A1A0319 for <multimob@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 15:30:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham
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 Aefv2iykVcwb for <multimob@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 15:30:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ufisa.uninett.no (ufisa.uninett.no [IPv6:2001:700:1:2:158:38:152:126]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6142D1A023C for <multimob@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 15:30:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:420:301:1004:c1f2:ff8f:1b6c:60dc] (unknown [IPv6:2001:420:301:1004:c1f2:ff8f:1b6c:60dc]) by ufisa.uninett.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2EEB98063; Wed, 19 Mar 2014 23:30:23 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <532A1A7D.4090801@venaas.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 15:30:21 -0700
From: Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Thomas C. Schmidt" <schmidt@informatik.haw-hamburg.de>, multimob@ietf.org
References: <20140316113858.12029.20135.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5329E98E.1020205@venaas.com> <532A11E4.4060404@informatik.haw-hamburg.de>
In-Reply-To: <532A11E4.4060404@informatik.haw-hamburg.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/multimob/WkrJ4Ts2HapLwBlCQYFIoqD3c2o
Cc: draft-ietf-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [multimob] I-D Action: draft-ietf-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast-04.txt
X-BeenThere: multimob@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multicast Mobility <multimob.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/multimob>, <mailto:multimob-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/multimob/>
List-Post: <mailto:multimob@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:multimob-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob>, <mailto:multimob-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 22:30:37 -0000

On 3/19/2014 2:53 PM, Thomas C. Schmidt wrote:
> Hi Stig,
>
> thanks for looking at the details carefully!
>
> All should be fixed in the present submission.

Thanks for the quick response! Can others in the WG please see if they
have any issues?

I'll request publication as soon as all the authors have stated whether
they are aware of any IPRs. Only missing one author and we're good to go.

Stig

> Thomas
>
> On 19.03.2014 20:01, Stig Venaas wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> Thanks for posting this much improved version. I have some comments on
>> this one too though. Can others in the WG please also see if they are
>> happy with this latest one?
>>
>> Here are my minor comments.
>>
>> Mark it as an update of RFC5568.
>>
>> Typo in 4.1.2: indicatior
>>
>> IN 4.2.2 it says:
>>
>>     The PMAG then waits for receiving the Multicast Acknowledgement
>>     Option(s) with a HACK message (see Section 5.4) and the creation of
>>     the bidirectional tunnel with NMAG.
>>
>> Better language to write "wait until it receives"?
>>
>> Also:
>>
>>     It SHOULD start forwarding traffic down the
>>     tunnel interface for those groups an MLD listener report was
>>     received from NMAG.
>>
>> Add "for which"? "For those groups for which an MLD"...
>>
>> 5.2:
>> In most of the document you use FBACK and HACK, but here you refer
>> to them as FBAck and HAck.
>>
>> Appendix A:
>> You write "In this section", but perhaps say appendix?
>>
>> Remove change log? Not that useful in the RFC I think.
>>
>> Stig
>>
>