Re: Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-roaming-analysis-06

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Peter,

Many thanks for the review.
I will incorporate your comments in the next update.
I reply the comments inline for your further check.
2014-10-15 14:53 GMT+08:00, Peter Yee <peter@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> 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 wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting
> a
> new version of the draft.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-roaming-analysis-06
> Reviewer: Peter Yee
> Review Date: October-14-2014
> IETF LC End Date: September-29-2014
> IESG Telechat date: October-16-2014
>
> Summary: This draft is ready with issues for publication as an
> Informational
> RFC. [Ready with issues]
>
> This draft discusses some of the issues that may occur when a mobile device
> roams on a visited network and attempts to use IPv6.  The technical meat of
> the draft is fine, but the language usage makes it difficult to read
> through
> without extra effort and reflection.  I'm not a 3GPP expert by any stretch
> of the imagination, so I can't tell if the analysis made is sufficiently
> comprehensive, but it appears to cover all of the IPv4/IPv6 combinations
> and
> home/local breakout uses cases.
>
> The following corrections appeared in my -05 review and have not been
> addressed.  I have not updated the page numbers to match any border cases
> that might have moved one way or another, but the section numbers should be
> correct.
>
> Minor issues:
>
> General:
>
> There are a lot of definite (the) and indefinite articles (a/an) missing in
> the draft.  This makes it really difficult to read and interpret what is
> meant.  In some cases, the plural form would also make sense, so it's hard
> to know how to interpret the sentence.  I hate to say it, but please look
> carefully at pretty much any acronym/initialism and the common nouns.  Make
> a determination if an article is appropriate.  I started to mark these
> items
> in the document while doing my review but became bogged down by the sheer
> number of missing and in a few cases superfluous articles.  I do understand
> that English may not be a primary language for several of the authors and
> appreciate your indulgence in trying to make the document more readable and
> therefore more useful.
>
>
> Nits:
>
> General:
>
> Separate references from the preceding text with a space, again for
> readability.
>
> I'll leave the Oxford/Harvard/serial comma alone for this review -- the
> first general nit will take enough time to straighten out!
>
> Specific:
>
> Page 3, 4th bullet item, 2nd sentence: omit the commas.

Ack

> Page 10, Section 4.2, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence: I don't think the word
> risky is what you mean.  More like guaranteed, right?

I guess "risky" is intended to say. If the home operator performs roaming
steering targeted to an operator that doesn't allow IPv6, IPv6-only visitors
couldn't be guaranteed to get the IPv6 address.

> Page 12, Section 5.2, 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence: change "to" to "on".

Ack

> Page 12, Section 5.2, 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence: insert "the" before
> "local".

Ack

> Page 12, Section 5.2, 4th paragraph, 1st sentence: delete "the" before
> "local".  (This correction was misapplied to paragraph 3 in the -06 draft,
> so I'm fixing it with the previous nit and leaving this one in place.)

Ack

> Page 14, Section 7, 2nd paragraph, 4th sentence: I'm simply having troubles
> parsing this sentence.  Please rewrite for clarity.  (Sorry, this one is
> still an issue.)

The 3rd paragraph in Section 3 has detailed analysis on the issue.
I rewrite the sentence as below. Please kindly check if the sentence
is acceptable.

==OLD Text==

   That PDP/PDN type is
   supported in new-built EPS network, but isn't supported well in the
   third generation network.  The situations may cause the roaming
   issues of declining the attach request of dual-stack subscribers.

==NEW Text==

   That PDP/PDN type is
   supported in new-built EPS network, but isn't supported well in the
   third generation network. Visited SGSNs may discard the subscriber's
   attach requests because the SGSN is unable to correctly process
   PDP/PDN type IPv4v6.

> Page 15, 2nd bullet item, 2nd sentence: insert "a" before "AAA".

Ack

BRs

Gang
>





[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]