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

[Suresh Krishnan <[e-mail]>]

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?

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