Fw: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dmm-requirements-14
"H Anthony Chan" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.nemo |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <1793A6B3A4804197BCA34EF65D958659__24471.727529499$1393485338$gmane$org@china.huawei.com> |
In response to comment from Russ Housley, the abstract is elaborated a little bit and acronyms have been checked. H Anthony Chan From: H Anthony Chan Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 4:49 PM To: Russ Housley ; [email protected] Cc: IESG ; IETF Gen-ART Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dmm-requirements-14 Thanks. Regarding the first comment, the abstract can be elaborated a little more as follows: This document defines the requirements for Distributed Mobility Management (DMM) at the network layer. The hierarchical structure in traditional wireless networks has led primarily to centrally deployed mobility anchors. As some wireless networks are evolving away from the hierarchical structure, it can be useful have a distributed model for mobility management in which traffic does not need to traverse centrally deployed mobility anchors far from the optimal route. Regarding the second comments on defining the acronyms: It appears there are 3 such instances: EPC, 3GPP, WLAN. All other acronyms have been properly defined. EPC needs to be spelled out before the acronym appears. 3GPP was spelled out in Section 3.1 but was also used in Section 1. It needs to move to Section 1. WLAN is also spelled out. H Anthony Chan From: Russ Housley Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 1:51 PM To: [email protected] Cc: IESG ; IETF Gen-ART Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dmm-requirements-14 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-dmm-requirements-14 Reviewer: Russ Housley Review Date: 2014-02-10 IETF LC End Date: 2014-02-17 IESG Telechat date: Unknown Summary: Ready for publication. Major Concerns: None. Minor Concerns: None. Other Comments: I think that the Abstract could be more polished. Some mention of the anchor point seems desirable. Spell out acronyms the first time they are used. EPC is an example that needs to be expanded. _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm