[DMM] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-18: (with COMMENT)

[Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-18: 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-ondemand-mobility/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for addressing my discuss. Sorry for the long delay on my side!

Here is my old  comment still:

Please also note that address mobility is actually more a transport question
that an application layer question. For TCP session-lasting addresses will
always be more efficient if available while an application using TCP will
always need to cover the case where an TCP connection fails or is interrupted
and therefore the application needs to reconnect. However, in contrast QUIC
supports IP address mobility and will survive changing IP addresses. I think
that should be also clarified in the draft and it should be double-check if the
use of the word application is always correct or if it should be replaced
sometimes with e.g. transport system or a more general term.