Early Review of draft-ietf-hip-rfc5205-bis-07
review-ietf-hip-rfc5205-bis-07-intdir-early-jiang-2015-12-11-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-hip-rfc5205-bis
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 10)
Type Early Review
Team Internet Area Directorate (intdir)
Deadline 2015-12-11
Requested 2015-11-20
Authors Julien Laganier
Draft last updated 2015-12-11
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -08 by Jouni Korhonen (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -09 by Jouni Korhonen (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -08 by Tina Tsou (diff)
Intdir Early review of -07 by Sheng Jiang (diff)
Intdir Early review of -07 by Zhen Cao (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -08 by Stefan Winter (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Sheng Jiang
State Completed
Review review-ietf-hip-rfc5205-bis-07-intdir-early-jiang-2015-12-11
Reviewed rev. 07 (document currently at 10)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2015-12-11

Review
review-ietf-hip-rfc5205-bis-07-intdir-early-jiang-2015-12-11

"I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-hip-rfc5204-bis
These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet
Area Directors. Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat these
comments just like they would treat comments from any other IETF
contributors and resolve them along with any other Last Call comments
that have been received. For more details on the INT Directorate,
see 

http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate.html.&quot

;

This standard track document obsoletes RFC5205, which was 
Experimental. I guess this need support from various implementation 
and inter-operational tests. I personally don't know them, but I guess 
they already took place. The document is well written and ready for 
publication.

This bis document has only little different from the original document: 
mainly three more paragraphs, two in section 4.2 and one in section 5.5.
They looks good. A couple of minor comments:

Entiry//entity, in 2nd paragraph of section 4.2, "the record MUST be 
considered to be no longer valid and deleted by the entiry that retrieved it"

The abbreviation "HPIHI" in section 6 has no explanation or long name 
when it appears first time.

Regards,

Sheng