[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Some comments on draft-ietf-multi6-v4-multihoming-02.txt
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 2004-11-02, at 08.02, Thierry Ernst wrote:
> - A table of contents is missing
Good catch. I guess that will get caught in the nits check. Thanks!
> - a sentence detailing the structure of the document (from section 2
> till end) would help.
Do you think the document is long enough to need this?
> - 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)
As they are so few I thought it made it more readable to repeat them.
> 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
> the text.
"those" refer to the private ASes.
> 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
> the other one, so this paragraph or Section 1 may be improved).
Originally these where written as compliments to each other. Not sure
if that still holds to 100%.
> 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 ?
yes, and to me that is pretty obvious from that sentence.
> - I would also suggest "state" -> amount of state. It might be useful
> 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.
As the table of contents is a show-stopper for the nits checking, I
need to make an update anyway and will include the other remarks.
- - kurtis -
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----