RE: [Seamoby] Status of WG Last Call

Hi Scott and all,

  > note that the IETF always wants to know about real problems 
  > in specifications
  > but it is helpful if people who have problems be very clear 
  > as to what they
  > are - so, Hesham, can you please send your comments to the 
  > list now -
  > please be very careful to say 
  > 	1/ exactly what you think is wrong
  > 	2/ exactly what you think should be done to fix it

=> I have 2 minor comments really but I thought they were
important enough to make sure we understand the different
ways of solving the problems outlined in the draft. 

1. The title of chapter 4.1 is confusing. It associates
'anticipation' with the case where the AR discovers 
other GAARs. This need not be the case. If anticipation
is in relation to handover, the MN can also discover
GAARs in advance. If anticipation is in relation to some
other event, then I think this 'other event' should be
stated. 

Chapter 4.2, on the other hand, explains the case where 
the MN discovers GAARs and is given a different. 

2. The first sentence of the same chapter (4.1) states
that the AR can discover a set of all GAARs for a 
certain MN. I think this assertion is false and I 
don't see why it should be stated at all. 

I hope this is clear enough. I really thought these 
are quite straight forward comments and we can fix
them quickly. Overall the draft is well written.

  > 
  > note that not all comments may pass working group consensus muster

=> Sure.

Hesham

_______________________________________________
Seamoby mailing list
Seamoby@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby