Subject: Some comments on draft-ietf-multi6-v4-multihoming-02.txt

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 16:02:26 +0900

Dear all,

This is the 1st time I read this draft, and, to be honest, I don't
really understand the value of the document. IMHO, more text and details
would help to fully meet the objectives of the draft. But I don't have
any suggestions besides the following (mostly) editorial comments.

- A table of contents is missing

Introduction

- a sentence detailing the structure of the document (from section 2
till end) would help.

- particularly, the abstract nor the introduction give me a hint of the
content of section 5. 

Section 2:

- all terms but one (mullti-addressed) are defined in RFC3582, why not
saying it ? (I'm OK with repeating the definitions, though)

Section 4.3

- I don't get the meaning of "having their upstreams remove those on
announcement".  Their upstreams what ? The same occurs in orher parts of
the text.

Section 5

- what is the purpose of this section ?  It says "analysis of the
features...". Is this an analysis which goes through the
goals/requirements defined in RFC3582. May sound like it since the
"Simplicity", "Transport-Layer Survivability" etc are defined in
RFC3582. (I know draft-v4-multihoming is about the "IPv4 experience",
but it's not so clear from reading the text which document inherits from
the other one, so this paragraph or Section 1 may be improved).

Section 5.4

- Typo in "A single-home client a multi-homed site"

Section 6.1

- Typo: remove 's' in 'might explains'

- higher growth: in what ? In the (number of) the multihomed sites ? 

- I would also suggest "state" -> amount of state. It might be useful to
specify what kind of state,  for the novice reader (unless we assume
this is obvious to the reader).

- no need for a section "6.1" if there is no section 6.2.

Thierry.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 09:30:24 +0100

Thierry,

The purpose of the document (which is one of our chartered
deliverables) is only to write down existing practice.
But I don't think any of us believe that has enough value to
actually add more text and details (i.e. do more work :-).

Thanks for the comments.

    Brian

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 15:00:12 +0100

(as co-author)

> - A table of contents is missing

Good catch. I guess that will get caught in the nits check. Thanks!

> - a sentence detailing the structure of the document (from section 2

Do you think the document is long enough to need this?

> - particularly, the abstract nor the introduction give me a hint of the

Ok.

> saying it ? (I'm OK with repeating the definitions, though)

As they are so few I thought it made it more readable to repeat them.

> announcement".  Their upstreams what ? The same occurs in orher parts 

"those" refer to the private ASes.

> the other one, so this paragraph or Section 1 may be improved).

Originally these where written as compliments to each other. Not sure 
if that still holds to 100%.

> - Typo in "A single-home client a multi-homed site"

Thanks.

> - Typo: remove 's' in 'might explains'

Thanks!

> - higher growth: in what ? In the (number of) the multihomed sites ?

yes, and to me that is pretty obvious from that sentence.

> this is obvious to the reader).

Agreed.

> - no need for a section "6.1" if there is no section 6.2.

Thanks!

As the table of contents is a show-stopper for the nits checking, I 
need to make an update anyway and will include the other remarks.

- - kurtis -