[netext] Review of I-D: draft-ietf-netext-redirect-10

[<[e-mail]>]

My WGLC review comments on Rev 10 of the I-D: draft-ietf-netext-redirect

1. Abstract can be improved. Rather than just mentioning the scope you
   could describe briefly the feature specified in this I-D.

2. Would be useful to describe in the introduction how runtime LMA
   assignment is different from the normal mode as specified in
   RFC5213 (which you do in Sec 5.2 1st paragraph)

3. s/assumed to have required Security Associations (SA)already set up
   in advance./assumed to have the required Security Associations (SA)
   pre-established.

4. In Section 4, it would be useful to explain (in brief) what is the
   functionality of a specific option. For example the
   'Redirect-Capability Mobility Option': The text has no explanation
   what this option is supposed to do in a message. You could add at
   least one sentence saying that it is used to indicate the redirect
   capability supported by the MAG, LMA entitied.

5. Missing the direction of the signaling flow message no 1 in fig 1.

6. s/There is no need to resend a PBU to the r2LMA after a successful
   runtime assignment./The MAG is not required to send a fresh PBU to
   the r2LMA after a successful runtime assignment.

7. s/The MAG MUST send subsequent binding refreshing PBUs and user
   traffic to the new r2LMA address./
   The MAG MUST send all user traffic to the r2LMA address. The MAG MUST
   send subsequent binding refresh PBUs to the r2LMA address.

-Raj