Re: Review of draft-ietf-dmm-4283mnids-03

[Charlie Perkins <[e-mail]>]

Hello Tatuya,

Thank you for the careful review.  Follow-up below:


On 1/6/2017 11:08 AM, Tatuya Jinmei wrote:
> - Section 4.1: I guess the MNID is generally supposed to be unique
> (at
>    least in the realm the ID is used), but not all IPv6 addresses are
>    guaranteed to be unique (a link-local or unspecified address is an
>    obvious example, an ULA may also be inappropriate depending on the
>    usage context).  It may be better to note the fact, and you may
> also
>    want to impose some restrictions on the type of address that can be
>    used as an MNID.

This is correct.  I will fashion some language as suggested.  I think it 
is appropriate to allow ULAs, but multicast and unspecified addresses 
seem clearly inappropriate, and I am i favor of disallowing link-local 
addresses.
>
> - Section 4.5
>
>     2000, modulo 2^32.  Since the link-layer address can be of
> variable
>     length [RFC2464], the DUID-LLT is of variable length.
>
>    I don't understand why RFC2464 is referenced in this context.  This
>    RFC is about IPv6 over Ethernet, and assumes a fixed (6 bytes)
>    length of hardware address.

I don't quite know what to do about this.  I actually just copied this 
language from RFC 3315.  I think that the citation is also wrong in RFC 
3315, for the same reason as given here.  I could simply delete the 
reference to RFC 2464.


>
> - Section 4.9: s/is (GRAI)/(GRAI)/
>
>     The Global Returnable Asset Identifier is (GRAI) is defined by the
>
>

Fixed.  I also checked for other similar instances and did not find any.

Regards,
Charlie P.