Re: [Int-dir] Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-dmm-distributed-mobility-anchoring-14

[CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO <[e-mail]>]

Dear Carlos,

Thanks a lot for your review. Please see inline below.


On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 4:05 AM Carlos Pignataro via Datatracker <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Reviewer: Carlos Pignataro
> Review result: Ready with Nits
>
> I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for this Internet-Draft.  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, see http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate.html.
>
> I hope these comments are clear and useful.
>
> As requested, from the Internet area Directorate review, these two DMM
> documents are being reviewed together:
> * draft-ietf-dmm-distributed-mobility-anchoring-14
> * draft-ietf-dmm-pmipv6-dlif-05
>
> This document defines distributed mobility anchoring, in terms of the
> different configurations and functions to provide IP mobility support,
> including network-based or host-based mobility support.
>
> The intended status is Informational. It is a very well written and
> comprehensive document. It is technically sound.
>
> No major or minor issues.
>
> Nits:
>
> A set of small nits for your consideration.
>
> 1.  Introduction
>
>    As a Mobile Node (MN) attaches to an access router and establishes a
>    link between them, a /64 IPv6 prefix anchored to the router may be
>    assigned to the link for exclusive use by the MN [RFC6459].  The MN
>    may then configure a global IPv6 address from this prefix and use it
>    as the source IP address in a flow to communicate with its
>    correspondent node (CN).
>
> Capitalize:
> s/correspondent node/Correspondent Node/
>

[CB] OK, fixed in -15 (to be submitted).


>
> 2.  Conventions and Terminology
>
>    These include terms such as mobile node (MN), correspondent node
>    (CN), home agent (HA), home address (HoA), care-of-address (CoA),
>    local mobility anchor (LMA), and mobile access gateway (MAG).
>
> Capitalize “Mobile Node” (as per § 1), “Corespondent Node”, etc.
>

[CB] OK, fixed in -15 (to be submitted).


> Similar within this same § 2, “mobile router”, etc.
> Same throughout the document (e.g., “router advertisement (RA)”)
>

[CB] OK, fixed in -15 (to be submitted).


>
> 4.3.  Mobility case, anchor relocation
>
>    The IP prefix/address anchoring may move without changing the IP
>    prefix/address of the flow.  Here the LM and FM functions in Figure 1
>    in Section 3.1 are implemented as shown in Figure 7.
>
> “Figure 1 in Section 3.1.1 are implemented”
>

[CB] OK, fixed in -15 (to be submitted).


>
>                          Figure 7: Anchor mobility
>
> Should this figure’s label be “Anchor Relocation” instead of ‘Anchor
> mobility”?
>

[CB] OK, makes sense. Fixed in -15 (to be submitted).


> 5.  Security Considerations
>
>    As stated in [RFC7333], "a DMM solution MUST supportany security
>
> s/supportany/support any/
>

[CB] OK, fixed in -15 (to be submitted).


>
> 8.2. Informative References
>
> The relationship of this document and draft-ietf-dmm-deployment-models is
> mostly clear, thank you for that.
>

[CB] Related to this, we got a comment from Mirja. Since
draft-ietf-dmm-deployment-models is not going to progress any further,
we'll try to remove the reference and incorporate the needed content to
make our document self contained without the reference.


>
> I hope you fid these comments useful.
>

[CB] Very much indeed. Thanks a lot!

Carlos


>
> Carlos Pignataro.
>
>
>
>