Opened 13 years ago

Closed 13 years ago

Last modified 12 years ago

#37 closed defect (fixed)

Editorial changes for PS draft from Jukka Manner

Reported by: kempf@… Owned by: kempf@…
Priority: minor Milestone:
Component: nohost-ps Severity:
Keywords: PS draft Cc: netlmm@…

Description (last modified by kempf@…)

  • The analysis in Section 4 should clearly say that the discussion is only about IETF-published LMM protocols. There are solutions in the research community that fit the problem scope, yet, none in the IETF itself.
  • Section 4, paragraph starting with "Having an interoperable, ..." talks at the end of the paragraph about MN involment in the handover process and movement detection, it says that no specific MN-AR protocol is needed. This sounds pretty contradictory and unclear to me. On one hand the MN takes part in the handover process, but then again no protocol is needed? How does the MN take part in the handover process then? DNA? What else? The idea behind this statement should be made clear.
  • Formatting is wrong, page width should be 72 characters, not 81.

Change History (3)

comment:1 Changed 13 years ago by kempf@…

  • Description modified (diff)
  • Status changed from new to assigned

comment:2 Changed 13 years ago by kempf@…

  • Resolution set to fixed
  • Status changed from assigned to closed

Fixed first one.

On the second, I don't see any problem with the current wording. I think it makes clear that "no host involvement" is only meant to apply to localized mobility management, not such generic functions as movement detection.

comment:3 Changed 12 years ago by anonymous

  • Milestone milestone2 deleted

Milestone milestone2 deleted

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.