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

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

Thierry Ernst wrote:
> 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.
>