[netext] Gen-art telechat review: draft-ietf-netext-update-notifications-08
Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Tue, 24 September 2013 18:02 UTC
Return-Path: <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BD0E21F96DA; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 11:02:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LSjBkLWzMc5D; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 11:02:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shaman.nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3732821F9E9D; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 11:02:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from unnumerable.local (pool-71-170-125-188.dllstx.fios.verizon.net [71.170.125.188]) (authenticated bits=0) by shaman.nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id r8OI2sj1004352 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 24 Sep 2013 13:02:54 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com)
Message-ID: <5241D3CE.8080206@nostrum.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 13:02:54 -0500
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, netext@ietf.org, draft-ietf-netext-update-notifications@tools.ietf.org
References: <521652E0.8030300@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <521652E0.8030300@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080803040207020305040206"
Received-SPF: pass (shaman.nostrum.com: 71.170.125.188 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Subject: [netext] Gen-art telechat review: draft-ietf-netext-update-notifications-08
X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " <netext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netext>, <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netext>
List-Post: <mailto:netext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext>, <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 18:02:57 -0000
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at < http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. Document: draft-ietf-netext-update-notifications-08 Reviewer: Robert Sparks Review Date: 2013-09-24 IETF LC End Date: 2013-08-29 IESG Telechat date: 2013-09-26 Summary: This draft is (still) ready for publication as Proposed Standard, but there are nits the editors agreed to fix that have not yet been addressed. On 8/22/13 1:05 PM, Robert Sparks wrote: > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on > Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments > you may receive. > > Document: draft-ietf-netext-update-notifications-07 > Reviewer: Robert Sparks > Review Date: 2013-08-22 > IETF LC End Date: 2013-08-29 > IESG Telechat date: not scheduled > > Summary: This draft is ready for publication as Proposed Standard > > I had to read through this text several times to convince myself > implementers could figure out what order they were required to take > steps in vs where they had flexibility: > o Upon accepting the Update Notification message, the mobile access > gateway MUST process the message and perform the actions based on > the Notification Reason. > * If the (A) flag in the message is set to a value of (1), the > mobile access gateway MUST first send an Update Notification > Acknowledgement message and set the status code field according > to the result of processing the Update Notification message. > > In particular, it's not immediately obvious if there is tension > between that "MUST first" and having "the result of processing" available. > Please consider rewording to make it clearer that this "result of > processing" is not intended to include waiting for the result of some > action processing this notification message might trigger. > > It might help readers understand the intended usual case > retransmission mechanics if the expected default values listed in > section 7 were called out earlier in the document.
- [netext] Gen-ART LC review: draft-ietf-netext-upd… Robert Sparks
- Re: [netext] Gen-ART LC review: draft-ietf-netext… Suresh Krishnan
- Re: [netext] Gen-ART LC review: draft-ietf-netext… Robert Sparks
- Re: [netext] Gen-ART LC review: draft-ietf-netext… Robert Sparks
- [netext] Gen-art telechat review: draft-ietf-nete… Robert Sparks
- Re: [netext] Gen-ART LC review: draft-ietf-netext… Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
- Re: [netext] Gen-ART LC review: draft-ietf-netext… Suresh Krishnan
- Re: [netext] Gen-ART LC review: draft-ietf-netext… Jari Arkko