Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-multimob-handover-optimization-05

Request Review of draft-ietf-multimob-handover-optimization
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 07)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2013-11-01
Requested 2013-10-24
Authors Luis M. Contreras , Carlos J. Bernardos , Ignacio Soto
I-D last updated 2013-11-05
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -05 by Scott W. Brim (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -06 by Scott W. Brim (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -05 by Chris M. Lonvick (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Chris M. Lonvick
State Completed
Review review-ietf-multimob-handover-optimization-05-secdir-lc-lonvick-2013-11-05
Reviewed revision 05 (document currently at 07)
Result Has Nits
Completed 2013-11-05

I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
IESG.  These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the
security area directors.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat
these comments just like any other last call comments.

Overall, I found the document to be understandable and I believe that all of
the security concerns have been documented.

I did find some editorial nits that you may want to address.

In Section 2, the phrase "Along this document..." is used.  It would be better
to use something like, "In this document...".

In Section, the phrase "which is be responsible of managing this
counter." is used.  I think it would be better to use "which is responsible for
managing this counter.".

The first sentence in Section 9 is, "This document defines the new following
elements which values to be allocated by IANA:"  I think it would be better to
say "This document establishes new assignments to the IANA mobility parameters

Best regards,