Skip to main content

Telechat Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-roaming-analysis-05

Request Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-roaming-analysis
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 07)
Type Telechat Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2014-10-14
Requested 2014-10-02
Authors Gang Chen , DENG Hui , Dave Michaud , Jouni Korhonen , Mohamed Boucadair
I-D last updated 2014-10-15
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -05 by Peter E. Yee (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -05 by Peter E. Yee (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -05 by Joseph A. Salowey (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -05 by Tim Chown (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Peter E. Yee
State Completed
Request Telechat review on draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-roaming-analysis by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 05 (document currently at 07)
Result Ready w/issues
Completed 2014-10-15
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at

Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a
new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-roaming-analysis-06
Reviewer: Peter Yee
Review Date: October-14-2014
IETF LC End Date: September-29-2014
IESG Telechat date: October-16-2014

Summary: This draft is ready with issues for publication as an Informational
RFC. [Ready with issues]

This draft discusses some of the issues that may occur when a mobile device
roams on a visited network and attempts to use IPv6.  The technical meat of
the draft is fine, but the language usage makes it difficult to read through
without extra effort and reflection.  I'm not a 3GPP expert by any stretch
of the imagination, so I can't tell if the analysis made is sufficiently
comprehensive, but it appears to cover all of the IPv4/IPv6 combinations and
home/local breakout uses cases.

The following corrections appeared in my -05 review and have not been
addressed.  I have not updated the page numbers to match any border cases
that might have moved one way or another, but the section numbers should be

Minor issues: 


There are a lot of definite (the) and indefinite articles (a/an) missing in
the draft.  This makes it really difficult to read and interpret what is
meant.  In some cases, the plural form would also make sense, so it's hard
to know how to interpret the sentence.  I hate to say it, but please look
carefully at pretty much any acronym/initialism and the common nouns.  Make
a determination if an article is appropriate.  I started to mark these items
in the document while doing my review but became bogged down by the sheer
number of missing and in a few cases superfluous articles.  I do understand
that English may not be a primary language for several of the authors and
appreciate your indulgence in trying to make the document more readable and
therefore more useful.



Separate references from the preceding text with a space, again for

I'll leave the Oxford/Harvard/serial comma alone for this review -- the
first general nit will take enough time to straighten out!


Page 3, 4th bullet item, 2nd sentence: omit the commas.

Page 10, Section 4.2, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence: I don't think the word
risky is what you mean.  More like guaranteed, right?

Page 12, Section 5.2, 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence: change "to" to "on".

Page 12, Section 5.2, 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence: insert "the" before

Page 12, Section 5.2, 4th paragraph, 1st sentence: delete "the" before
"local".  (This correction was misapplied to paragraph 3 in the -06 draft,
so I'm fixing it with the previous nit and leaving this one in place.)

Page 14, Section 7, 2nd paragraph, 4th sentence: I'm simply having troubles
parsing this sentence.  Please rewrite for clarity.  (Sorry, this one is
still an issue.)

Page 15, 2nd bullet item, 2nd sentence: insert "a" before "AAA".