Document: draft-ietf-mip6-mn-ident-option-02.txt Review: Michael A. Patton Date: 3 mars 2005 Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC, but has two minor organizational improvements that I recommend be done before publication. BTW, whatever formatter was used forced a break at every section. This was a little excessive. I assume this will be cleaned up in the RFC process and doesn't actually require any action other than having the authors watch for it in the final RFC. Section 3.1 says "defined in Section 3". But 3.1, which is PART OF 3, is where it's really defined. So that makes it (at least sort of) circular. What you mean to say is that the suboption being defined in 3.1 USES the format of the general option as in the preceding part of section 3 ... I don't think what you have is actually broken, just that it could be written better. It's probably not necessary to correct this, just a suggestion for a place that could use improvement if work is being done. In fact, the best thing (also see next paragraph) might be to separate the general MN stuff from the MN-NAI specific stuff in different sections. Some of the Security Considerations are general to any MN usage and some are specific to MN-NAI. I would prefer to see these split into distinct subsections so that what applies to other MN subtypes is clearer.