Re: [netext] Gen-ART LC review: draft-ietf-netext-update-notifications-07

Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Thu, 22 August 2013 21:51 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 3870E21F9F0A; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:51:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.14
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.14 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.460, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 pah0-4iHErQ3; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:51:15 -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 4B29C21F9EED; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:51:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from unnumerable.local (pool-173-71-53-173.dllstx.fios.verizon.net [173.71.53.173]) (authenticated bits=0) by shaman.nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id r7MLp9lP009783 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 22 Aug 2013 16:51:11 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com)
Message-ID: <521687CD.40502@nostrum.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 16:51:09 -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: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>
References: <521652E0.8030300@nostrum.com> <52167D67.2010103@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <52167D67.2010103@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass (shaman.nostrum.com: 173.71.53.173 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Cc: netext@ietf.org, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-netext-update-notifications@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netext] Gen-ART LC review: draft-ietf-netext-update-notifications-07
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: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 21:51:16 -0000

On 8/22/13 4:06 PM, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>    Thanks a lot for the review. We will include the changes in the next
> revision we submit. Please see proposed changes inline.
>
> On 08/22/2013 02:05 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.
> I think we can lose the word first without losing anything. Does the
> following rewording work for you?
Yes, thanks!
>
> OLD:
> 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.
>
> NEW:
> If the (A) flag in the message is set to a value of (1), the mobile
> access gateway MUST send an Update Notification Acknowledgement message
> with the status code field set based on the result of processing the
> Update Notification message.
>
>> 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.
> Sure. Will call out the defaults at first use.
>
> Thanks
> Suresh
>