Re: [DMM] WGLC on draft-ietf-dmm-pmipv6-dlif-03

[John Kaippallimalil <[e-mail]>]

Review and comments on draft-ietf-dmm-pmipv6-dlif-03.

The text in the draft is clear, and it is ready to move forward in my view.

A couple of comments below:
(not repeating nits that Dirk has already posted)

Section 3:
"As another note, the solution described in this document allows performing per-prefix anchoring decisions, to support e.g., some flows to be anchored at a central Home-DPA (like a traditional LMA)"
Would be good to clarify a bit here: is this a result of the MN requesting central anchoring (or not), or the result of the mobility topology (MAARs, CMDs).

Section 3.4:
Does the implementation with parallel operations need to mention something about race conditions.
It is probably fine in practice, but not a completely safe operation (e.g., MAAR2 may forward data to MAAR1 before the route update at MAAR1 is complete)
Overall - the draft looks really good and ready.

John



From: dmm [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of [e-mail]
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2019 10:18 AM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [DMM] WGLC on draft-ietf-dmm-pmipv6-dlif-03

Hi all,
I agree to forward the mature and very useful document to IESG.

I just detected 3 very minor nits presumably created during recent re-formatting:
P.7
the MN-ID, Pref1 and MAAr1's address as a Proxy-CoA => the MN-ID, Pref1, and MAAR1's address as a Proxy-CoA

5. MAAR1 stores the BCE described in (1) an unicast a Router Advertisement (RA) to the MN with Pref1 => 5. MAAR1 stores the BCE described in (1) and unicasts a Router Advertisement (RA) to the MN with Pref1
P.9
Step 6. Is an empty one and SHOULD be deleted
;-)

Thanks!
Kind regards
Dirk

From: dmm <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
Sent: Mittwoch, 9. Januar 2019 19:44
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: [DMM] WGLC on draft-ietf-dmm-pmipv6-dlif-03

Folks - As we discussed in the WG meeting at IETF103, we are issuing WGLC on https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dmm-pmipv6-dlif-03.txt.

We have also made one key change to the document status, moving it from Standards Track to Experimental Track. We the chairs have talked to the authors and they are OK with this change. We are dong this as we are not sure about any potential vendor implementations and so we chose to keep this on experimental track.

The document went through several revisions and there were good amount of reviews on this document.  The authors have addressed all the comments and there are no open issues that we are tracking at this time. We believe the document is ready for IESG reviews and like to confirm the same from the working group.


The following message commences a two week WGLC for all feedback.

Document Link:
 https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dmm-pmipv6-dlif-03.txt<https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dmm-pmipv6-dlif-03..txt>

The target status for this document is "Experimental".

Please post any comments/concerns on the draft.


Thanks!
Dapeng & Sri