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

Tatuya Jinmei <> Fri, 06 January 2017 19:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04B63129611; Fri, 6 Jan 2017 11:08:44 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Tatuya Jinmei <>
Subject: Review of draft-ietf-dmm-4283mnids-03
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.40.3
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2017 11:08:44 -0800
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2017 19:08:44 -0000

Reviewer: Tatuya Jinmei
Review result: Ready with Nits

I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for
These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet
Area Directors. Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat these
comments just like they would treat comments from any other IETF
contributors and resolve them along with any other Last Call comments
that have been received. For more details on the INT Directorate,

I've reviewed the 03 version of the draft.  I didn't find anything
obviously wrong/incorrect, and it's generally well-written.  So I
think it's basically ready for ship.  But I'd have to note that I'm
not familiar with many of the lower-layer technologies referenced in
the draft, so my review and conclusion are somewhat superficial.

I found some minor points.  The authors may want to address them:

- Section 4.1: I guess the MNID is generally supposed to be unique
  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
  want to impose some restrictions on the type of address that can be
  used as an MNID.

- Section 4.5

   2000, modulo 2^32.  Since the link-layer address can be of
   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.

- Section 4.9: s/is (GRAI)/(GRAI)/

   The Global Returnable Asset Identifier is (GRAI) is defined by the