Last Call Review of draft-ietf-alto-server-discovery-08
review-ietf-alto-server-discovery-08-genart-lc-shirazipour-2013-06-22-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-alto-server-discovery
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 10)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2013-06-20
Requested 2013-06-06
Draft last updated 2013-06-22
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -08 by Meral Shirazipour (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -08 by Tina Tsou (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Meral Shirazipour
State Completed
Review review-ietf-alto-server-discovery-08-genart-lc-shirazipour-2013-06-22
Reviewed rev. 08 (document currently at 10)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2013-06-22

Review
review-ietf-alto-server-discovery-08-genart-lc-shirazipour-2013-06-22






I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at


http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq

  .




 




Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive.




 




Document: draft-ietf-alto-server-discovery-08




Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour




Review Date: 2013-06-20




IETF LC End Date: 2013-06-20




IESG Telechat date: NA




 




 




Summary:




This draft is almost ready to be published as Standards Track RFC but I do have some comments.




 




Nits/editorial comments:




-[Page 4], 2nd line before last, "funcional"--typo-->"functional"




-[Page 5], Section 2, Point 2, "neccessary"--typo-->"necessary"




-[Page 5], 2nd paragraph before last, "whishes"--typo-->"wishes"




-[Page 5], last paragraph, "neccessarily"--typo-->"necessarily"




-[Page 6], Section 3.1.1. 




"If DHCP-based discovery succeeds the software SHOULD inform the user that the user input has been ignored and replaced by information retrieved from the network."




Suggestion to put "," after "If DHCP-based discovery succeeds".




-[Page 8], Section 4, line 3, "mobilility"--typo-->"mobility"




-[Page 8], Section 4, paragraph 2, "familly"--typo-->"family"




-[Page 8], Section 4, paragraph 2, "familiy"--typo-->"family"




-[Page 9], last line, "corrsponding"--typo-->"corresponding"




-[Page 11], paragraph 3, "anormalities"--typo-->"abnormalities"




-[page 12]




"The security aspects of obtaining the domain name that is used for input to the U-NAPTR process is described in respective documents, such as [RFC5986]."




Refers to more than one documents but only lists RFC5986. It would be better to either list the other documents or say "described in [RFC5986]."




-[Page 13], Section 7.2, Ref. [I-D.ietf-alto-protocol] points to older version.




-[Page 13], Section 7.2, Ref. [I-D.kist-alto-3pdisc] points to older version.




-General, please consider spelling out acronyms when first used. Also using a common way (first letters capital or not):




"network address translation (NAT)" versus "Virtual Private Network (VPN)"




 




Best Regards,




Meral




---




Meral Shirazipour




Ericsson




Research




www.ericsson.com