Re: [DMM] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-dmm-distributed-mobility-anchoring-14: (with COMMENT)

[CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO <[e-mail]>]

Hi Éric,

Thanks for your review. Please see inline below.


On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 10:15 AM Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-dmm-distributed-mobility-anchoring-14: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmm-distributed-mobility-anchoring/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thank you for the work put into this document.
>
> Nevertheless, please find below some non-blocking COMMENTs (and I would
> appreciate a response from the authors) and NITS.
>
> Please also address the review done by Carlos for the Internet Directorate
> (see:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-dmm-distributed-mobility-anchoring-14-intdir-telechat-pignataro-2020-02-28/
> ) Thank you Carlos for this review.
>

[CB] I've just replied to Carlos. Version -15 (to be submitted) addresses
his comments.


>
> I hope that this helps to improve the document,
>
> Regards,
>
> -éric
>
> == COMMENTS ==
>
> -- Section 4 --
> Can you better define what is a "dynamic IP address" ?
>

[CB] I've added in -15 (to be submitted) the following explanatory text:

"[...] dynamic IP address (meaning that this address is only used while the
MN is attached to this access router, and therefore the IP address
configured by the MN dynamically changes when attaching to a different
access network)."


> In the last paragraph, is there any reason why
> draft-ietf-intarea-provisioning-domains is not mentioned as yet another
> means
> to select an IP address for new connections ?
>

[CB] The reason is that we mention mechanisms that consider the mobility
properties of the addresses, while draft-ietf-intarea-provisioning-domains
is a generic mechanism. Do you think we should add the reference?


>
> -- Section 4.1 --
> Please expand AR at first use
>

[CB] Done in -15 (to be submitted).


> -- Section 4.3 --
> To be honest, relocating the DP anchor is sending a bad feeling under my
> skin... Scalability will be a major concerned as mentioned in your
> document:
> "such a solution may present some scalability concerns"
>

[CB] I personally agree with that for a generic scenario, and I'm not a fan
of it. However, I must admit that this mechanism might be a viable option
under certain (limited scope) scenarios. I tried to be neutral here, and
report this as an option (as it is an option, even if it is not the one I'd
personally go for ;)).

Thanks!

Carlos