Subject to correction of the points below, and some non-technical
suggestions sent to the document authors, I believe that this document
is ready to publish.
Bill
Technical issues
1) Somewhere, the document needs to have a definitive reference to the
definition of a VRF. If no such reference exists, then a definition of
Virtual Referencing and Forwarding must be given inside this document.
This could be included in the explanation of VRF in Section 2, or
inserted at an appropriate place in the subsequent text.
2) The ACP is defined in various ways in the ANIMA documents. I don't
like any of the ones that I have seen in published documents; I find the
one in Section 3.1 of draft-ietf-anima-reference-model-05 to be
particularly opaque. It is very important that all definitions of the
ACP (in the reference model, in the ACP document, etc.) say the same
thing. The one that I like best was suggested by Brian Carpenter in a
discussion with me and some others:
"The ACP is the secure transport substrate that is *used by* the ANI
for its interactions with other *autonomic* nodes and services."
I hope that a good definition can be agreed to by all document writers;
the important thing is that we not be seen as saying different things in
different documents.
3) Section 6, para 2, line 3. "following ACP specific information field
in its domain certificate" -> "ACP specific information in the xxx field
of its domain certificate, as specified in Section 6.1.1," (The word
"following" refers to something that is 5 paragraphs away, and so is
ambiguous. It is important to be specific here. Note: I cannot tell
from the text what field of the domain certificate must contain this
information, so I have written "xxx". Please make the appropriate
substitution.)
4) In Section 6.8.2, para 6, line 3. "equally built" (What does
"equally" mean here? I cannot puzzle out what is intended.)
5) In Section 6.10.1, bullet 4, this bullet appears to be talking about
three types of addresses, "ULA", "ULA-Random", and "assigned ULA", when
in fact there are only two. I suggest the following text for the first
sentence:
"Use-ULA: For loopback interfaces of ACP nodes, we use
Unique Local Addresses (ULA), specifically ULA-Random, as
specified in [RFC4193]."
6) In Section 6.10.3 and Section 6.10.3.1, the phrases "zone", "Zone
ID", "zone-ID", and "Zone-ID" are used interchangeably. This is
ambiguous. Since almost all of the discussion is about the "Zone-ID"
field, the two sections should be reviewed carefully, with the goal of
using a single phrase throughout these two sections. If "zone", Zone
ID, "zone-ID", or "Zone-ID" is used elsewhere in the document, it should
be examined. When discussing the concept of a zone, "zone" should be
used; when discussing the Zone-ID field, "Zone-ID" should be used.
--
Dr. J.W. Atwood, Eng. tel: +1 (514) 848-2424 x3046
Distinguished Professor Emeritus fax: +1 (514) 848-2830
Department of Computer Science
and Software Engineering
Concordia University EV 3.185 email:[email protected]
1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd. West http://users.encs.concordia.ca/~bill
Montreal, Quebec Canada H3G 1M8
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
