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

[Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


(as co-author)

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!

> Introduction
>
> - 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.

Ok.

> 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 
> of
> 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 
> from
> 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"

Thanks.

> Section 6.1
>
> - Typo: remove 's' in 'might explains'

Thanks!

> - 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 
> to
> specify what kind of state,  for the novice reader (unless we assume
> this is obvious to the reader).

Agreed.

> - no need for a section "6.1" if there is no section 6.2.

Thanks!


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

iQA/AwUBQYeS9qarNKXTPFCVEQJxqwCglKDNM7CuZvBhoNSPNRA+rO9qhl4AoKX8
M0szxsxv5mOTyLuwmQiWJJPq
=YDbX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----