Subject: [Dime] Review of draft-ietf-dime-mip6-integrated-07.txt

From: "David Frascone" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 10:52:57 -0500

This review is entirely editorial . . . The content / protocol changes
seemed fine.

Section 1, Paragraph 2:
   "The aformentioned information may be statically"  is not a sentence.
   "to react on sudden" -> "to react to sudden"
   "Static Provisioning may not be desirable, in light of the mentioned
limitations" -- I'd change "the mentioned" to these -- since you just
described them.

Section 3, Paragraph 1
    The phrase "required by for the MIPv6" didn't pass my parser.  "required
by" would be sufficient.

Section 3, Paragraph 4
   "... the Diamater server in the ASA/MSA detects that ..."  I'm not sure
how Diameter servers detect anything -- What is the Diameter server really
doing at this point?  This needs to be clarified and re-written.

Section 3, Paragraph 5
  "Depending on the details of the d bootstrapping solution interaction . .
." I'd get rid of the word "solution"

Section 4
   The first sentence has a comma, but only lists two things that the
section defines.  Use the word "and" instead.

Section 4.1
   The first sentence has a phrase added, "and in all new applications" that
is out of place in the sentence.  I'd re-write it to something like this:
"... related AVPs that can be used in existing Diameter applications (and in
all new applications), where permitted by the command ABNF.

Section 4.2, Paragraph 2
   "respective used applications" fails my grammar parser.

Section 4.2, Paragraph 3
   Last sentence is a run-on -- may be a typo:  However is capitalized.
Also, "However, for example, " Should either be "However, " or "For example,
" -- not both.

Section 4.7.3, Paragraph 2
   I've read this paragraph three times, and still don't know what it is
trying to say.  I keep getting lost in the grammar.

Section 4.7.4
   Remove "a" from "prefix information in a network byte order"

Section 4.7.5
   Even though it seems strange, "bit fields" contain multiple bits.  There
is no such thing as a "bits field"  So -- "64 bits flags field" should be
"64 bit flags field"

Section 5.3, Paragraph 1
   "shows a message flows" -> "shows a message flow"
   "The Diameter server is also able to provide a HA to the MN but also
authorizes . . " -- too many also's

That's all I found -- so far -- hehe . .

-Dave
_______________________________________________
DiME mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 12:27:24 +0200

Hi Dave,

Thank you for your comments.

I updated the draft based on your feedback.

The updated version can be found here:
http://www.tschofenig.priv.at/svn/draft-ietf-dime-mip6-integrated/draft-ietf-dime-mip6-integrated-08.txt

>    "The aformentioned information may be statically"  is not a sentence.
Fixed.

>    "to react on sudden" -> "to react to sudden"
OK.

> limitations" -- I'd change "the mentioned" to these -- since you just
OK

>     The phrase "required by for the MIPv6" didn't pass my parser.  "required
Fixed.

> doing at this point?  This needs to be clarified and re-written.
Fixed.

> ." I'd get rid of the word "solution"
Fixed.

> section defines.  Use the word "and" instead.
Fixed.

> all new applications), where permitted by the command ABNF.
Fixed.

>    "respective used applications" fails my grammar parser.
Fixed.

> Also, "However, for example, " Should either be "However, " or "For example,
Fixed.

> trying to say.  I keep getting lost in the grammar.

Deleted it.

>    Remove "a" from "prefix information in a network byte order"
Fixed.

> is no such thing as a "bits field"  So -- "64 bits flags field" should be
Fixed.

>    "shows a message flows" -> "shows a message flow"
Ok.

> authorizes . . " -- too many also's
OK.

> That's all I found -- so far -- hehe . .
Ciao
Hannes

> -Dave
>
>   
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>