Re: Review of draft-ietf-dmm-lma-controlled-mag-params-02

"Dhananjay Patki (dhpatki)" <> Thu, 22 December 2016 09:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CD4C12973D; Thu, 22 Dec 2016 01:35:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.622
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.622 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 84own4RuHbCw; Thu, 22 Dec 2016 01:35:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E123B1293E4; Thu, 22 Dec 2016 01:35:16 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=3728; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1482399316; x=1483608916; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=sD7nLBzMinGFHjrCes6pY4+PQs0A+7WUAKpmN+C/59E=; b=MQPeJ4M52aLEj1McTU6SXrzUziTpUE7Jhb8lZAHloKAQD3XkCSbleSwf Ed1I2dhp1poUeSl0HPLZpy3vA2uX5gS0yclgwqiHpozoy5KOeCGWvP723 jJ5zZX818xMymcUtVCM5Ana+bLs2L9wrKz0+1J4/jH9IszG+ofo1Qgb9w U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,387,1477958400"; d="scan'208";a="188421166"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 22 Dec 2016 09:35:09 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id uBM9Z9vw030894 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 22 Dec 2016 09:35:09 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Thu, 22 Dec 2016 04:35:08 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Thu, 22 Dec 2016 04:35:08 -0500
From: "Dhananjay Patki (dhpatki)" <>
To: Ralph Droms <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: Review of draft-ietf-dmm-lma-controlled-mag-params-02
Thread-Topic: Review of draft-ietf-dmm-lma-controlled-mag-params-02
Thread-Index: AQHSW7cfUHCsrEmlcU+8RySvIxIQxqEUZe8A
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2016 09:35:08 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.1d.0.161209
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2016 09:35:20 -0000


Thanks for the review. We will address the comments and get back with a new version of the draft.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ralph Droms <>
Date: Wednesday, 21 December 2016 at 11:51 PM
To: "" <>
Cc: "" <>rg>, "" <>rg>, "" <>
Subject: Review of draft-ietf-dmm-lma-controlled-mag-params-02
Resent-From: <>
Resent-To: <>om>, <>om>, <>kr>, <>om>, <>om>, <>om>, <>om>, <>om>, <>rg>, Dapeng Liu <>om>, <>
Resent-Date: Wednesday, 21 December 2016 at 11:51 PM

Reviewer: Ralph Droms
Review result: Ready with Issues

Major issues:  None

Minor issues:

The mechanism described in this document is fairly simple.  I
recommend that the specific semantics of the use of the parameter
options should be explained with greater clarity to ensure correct and
interoperable implementations.  For example, I found the description
of LMA behavior in section 5.1 to be quite convoluted and confusing. 
Putting the "if...then...else" construct in two bullets seemed obtuse.
 In the first bullet, the LMA "SHOULD include" the sub-option.  Are
there circumstances under which the LMA would not include the
sub-option and, if so, what are those circumstances?  Can the LMA
decide, perhaps for efficiency, to return the sub-option in only, say,
one of ten responses to the MAG?

Is there a specific reason for encoding the LAM Controlled MAG Session
Parameters as sub-options under the LAM-Controlled-MAG-Parameters
option?  Will additional sub-options be defined in the future?

Editorial issues.

For clarity, the document should use acronyms and names for system
components in a consistent way: use acronyms throughout and expand the
acronym on first use.  For example, LMA and "local mobility anchor"
are used interchangeably throughout the document, which this reviewer
found to be distracting.

What is the expansion for "PBU"?

The use of the "Configuration Variables" defined in section 4 is
repeated in section 5.1.  To avoid internal inconsistency, I recommend
that the use of the variable be described only once, with internal
pointers to that text from other places in the document.

In section 6, it would help the reader to include the name of the
registry to be modified in the first bullet.