ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: TSVDIR review of draft-ietf-mif-current-practices-10

2011-04-27 10:30:00
Hi Haibin,

Thanks for the review. The draft has been updated accordingly. Please see 
inline for more details.

Br,
Pierrick

-----Message d'origine-----
De : Songhaibin [mailto:haibin(_dot_)song(_at_)huawei(_dot_)com]
Envoyé : mercredi 27 avril 2011 05:43
À : tsv-dir(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Cc : tsv-ads(_at_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; 
draft-ietf-mif-current-
practices(_at_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org
Objet : TSVDIR review of draft-ietf-mif-current-practices-10

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."


ok, section 3.3 is removed.

-------
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...."


Rewording:

When SNAPs are used, the operating system can notify applications when a 
preferred IAP, leading to the same destination, becomes available (for example, 
when a user comes within range of his home WLAN access point), or when the 
currently used IAP is no longer available. If so, applications have to 
reconnect via another IAP (for example, when a user goes out of range of his 
home WLAN and must move to the cellular network).

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.


n/a since section is removed.

By the way, in Section 3.1.3 line 2, delete duplicate "can use".


Done.

I hope this feedback will be useful to the authors.


Yes, thanks.

-Haibin
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>