Hi, all,
I've reviewed this document as part of the transport area directorate's ongoing
effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written primarily for
the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's authors for
their information and to allow them to address any issues raised. The authors
should consider this review together with any other last-call comments they
receive. Please always CC tsv-dir(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org if you reply to or
forward this review.
The document describes how the current practices cope with challenges raised by
multiple interfaces. This draft is very good to read. And the content is
complete in my opinion. But I also have one main comment and two minor comments.
--------
The main comment:
Section 3.3. Focus on access network selection
This section describes the current practices about how to select the access
network/points, especially how connection manager deal with the list of
preferred SSID and how does it select the access point for attachment. I think
this is out of the scope of MIF WG, which is aimed to address the problems
raised by multiple interfaces, instead of attachment network/point selection
for one interface. And the charter explicitly says: " Network discovery and
selection on lower layers as defined by RFC 5113 is out of scope."
-------
Two minor comments:
3.1.1 Nokia S60 3rd Edition, Feature Pack 2
Paragraph " When SNAPs are used, it is possibly for the operating system to
notify applications when a preferred IAP, leading to the same destination,
becomes available...."
When the word "possibly" is used here, I am a little confused. I guess the
authors mean the operating system provides the capability to notify the
applications, but the applications may/may not use it. Or does it mean the
operating system can decide whether to notify the applications?
Section 3.3.1 and 3.3.2
These two sections describe the access network selection for Android/HTC Magic
and RIM BlackBerry. But they use the similar method and most of the text are
the same. So it is possible to merge these two sections. But my this comment is
useless if the main comment is accepted.
By the way, in Section 3.1.3 line 2, delete duplicate "can use".
I hope this feedback will be useful to the authors.
-Haibin
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf