[DMM] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-dmm-pmipv6-dlif-06: (with COMMENT)
Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <firstname.lastname@example.org> Sun, 08 March 2020 21:31 UTC
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38D5E3A0763; Sun, 8 Mar 2020 14:31:34 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
From: =?utf-8?q?=C3=89ric_Vyncke_via_Datatracker?= <email@example.com>
To: "The IESG" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, Dapeng Liu <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
Reply-To: =?utf-8?q?=C3=89ric_Vyncke?= <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Sun, 08 Mar 2020 14:31:34 -0700
Subject: [DMM] =?utf-8?q?=C3=89ric_Vyncke=27s_No_Objection_on_draft-ietf-?= =?utf-8?q?dmm-pmipv6-dlif-06=3A_=28with_COMMENT=29?=
List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management Working Group <dmm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dmm>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 08 Mar 2020 21:31:42 -0000
Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dmm-pmipv6-dlif-06: 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-pmipv6-dlif/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for the work put into this document. And congratulations for the many advanced ASCII art ! Except for section 3.6, the text is really easy to read. Thank you also for fixing my previous DISCUSS as well as replying by email to my comments. I have kept the original DISCUSS & COMMENT below. Please also address the points raised by Carlos during the INT directorate review. Thank you again Carlos ! https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-dmm-pmipv6-dlif-05-intdir-telechat-pignataro-2020-02-28/ Happy that my comments have helped to improve the document Regards, -éric == OLD DISCUSS == -- Section 4.3 & 4.4 & 4.5 -- Probably trivial to fix but is "Prefix Length" expressed in bits (/64) or in bytes (8 bytes). If the latter, then how can we have a prefix of /57 ? The definition of the "Prefix length" field should be specific about the unit (bits/bytes) and be aligned with the definition of "Anchored prefix" (as this one seems to assert that the prefix length must be a multiple of 8). == COMMENTS == A generic question, can a MN be attached to multiple MAAR at the same time? I.e., once over WiFi and once of 3GPP ? There seems to be only one S-MAAR at any time. -- Section 3.1 -- Should the length of the prefix assigned to the MN be specified? Adding a /64 would make things clearer without using too much of text. For my own curiosity, the text is about "IPv6 global prefix", but, would ULA also work ? -- Section 3.6 -- This section is so different than the previous ones in section 3, that I would have created a section on its own. This section also uses EUI-64 for the link-local address; and, this is no more advised for privacy reason. Not really important in the DMM context though. Important thing to fix, s/fe80:211:22ff:fe33:101/fe80::211:22ff:fe33:101/ ;-) The text of this section is really difficult to parse. After 2 readings I am not even sure that I got it... I was about to open a DISCUSS for the point 2) but I am unsure whether I am reading the text correctly. 1) If the MAC and LLA for the 'virtual router' mn1mar2 are different than the one for mn1mar2, why is there a need for different interface? Multiple routers can exist on the same link. 2) For packets sourced by MN1 with prefix1 how can we ensure that they are sent to mn1mar1 and not to mn1mar? PvD could help there and should be mentionned draft-ietf-intarea-provisioning-domains. -- Section 4.2 -- Bit 31 is not described, it is probably reserved but you should really described it. With this PBA packet format, all flags / bits are used and assigned for an experimental document. Isn't it a waste of bits? I will really appreciate an answer on this question. == NITS == -- Section 3 (and possibly others) -- The CMD and MAAR acronyms are expanded multiple times. This makes the reading easier for newcomers of course.
- [DMM] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-dm… Éric Vyncke via Datatracker