Hi David,
many thanks for the review and the feedback.
Please see responses inline.
On 17.02.2014 04:22, Black, David 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-multimob-pmipv6-source-07
Reviewer: David L. Black
Review Date: Feb 16, 2014
IETF LC End Date: Feb 24, 2014
Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that
should be fixed before publication.
This draft describes multicast support for proxy mobile IPv6. It assumes
significant understanding of multicast and specifically the PIM-SM protocol.
Nits/editorial comments:
-- Introduction, 3rd paragraph
Remove the word business from the following text, please:
Such approaches (partially) follow
the business model of providing multicast data services in parallel
to PMIPv6 unicast routing [I-D.ietf-multimob-handover-optimization].
O.K., done.
-- 4.3.1
The fact that PIM-SM has three phases could be made somewhat clearer here.
Suggestion:
OLD
The granularity of mobility-related routing
locators required in PIM depends on the complexity (phases) of its
deployment.
The following information is needed for all three phases of PIM as
defined in [RFC4601].
NEW
The granularity of mobility-related routing
locators required in PIM depends on the complexity (specific phase)
of its deployment.
For all three phases of PIM deployment (see [RFC4601]), the following
information is needed.
O.K., done
Also, is "deployment" the right word to describe the phases? It implies
that not all of the phases need to be present in an implementation or
used, even if applicable.
You're right. We have reworded
For all three phases in the operation of PIM (see [RFC4601]), the
following information is needed.
-- 4.3.2 - 4.3.4
I would also suggest including the names of the phases from RFC 4601 in
these section titles, e.g.:
4.3.2. Operations of PIM in Phase One (RP Tree)
Thanks, done.
-- idnits
idnits 2.13.01 found an unused reference and a couple of drafts that
have been updated:
== Unused Reference: 'RFC2236' is defined on line 1047, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
Oh, a lapse - RFC2236 is listed mainly for historic/compatibility
reasons. It is referenced now.
== Outdated reference: A later version (-02) exists of
draft-ietf-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast-01
== Outdated reference: A later version (-07) exists of
draft-ietf-multimob-handover-optimization-06
This is due to an update problem of the online tool (ID database), which
seems fixed now.
Thanks again!
We will update the document as soon as the submission re-opens.
Best regards,
Thomas
--
Prof. Dr. Thomas C. Schmidt
° Hamburg University of Applied Sciences Berliner Tor 7 °
° Dept. Informatik, Internet Technologies Group 20099 Hamburg, Germany °
° http://www.haw-hamburg.de/inet Fon: +49-40-42875-8452 °
° http://www.informatik.haw-hamburg.de/~schmidt Fax: +49-40-42875-8409 °