[netext] AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation

Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net> Wed, 21 May 2014 13:49 UTC

Return-Path: <brian@innovationslab.net>
X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A670D1A035E for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 May 2014 06:49:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rEPJhO6G11B2 for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 May 2014 06:49:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uillean.fuaim.com (uillean.fuaim.com [206.197.161.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 649C31A067C for <netext@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 May 2014 06:49:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clairseach.fuaim.com (clairseach-high.fuaim.com [206.197.161.158]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by uillean.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B629B8810B; Wed, 21 May 2014 06:49:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 1025237161.rudm2.ra.johnshopkins.edu (addr16212925014.ippl.jhmi.edu [162.129.250.14]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clairseach.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C74571C0002; Wed, 21 May 2014 06:49:53 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <537CAEFA.3070208@innovationslab.net>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 09:49:46 -0400
From: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: draft-ietf-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation@tools.ietf.org, "netext@ietf.org" <netext@ietf.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="fbIvnQPddVPPIcO3RmwAE4Tuahc1f7FEs"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netext/U8CY1lh1cqucBpDK9u2cWsyumDE
Subject: [netext] AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation
X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " <netext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netext>, <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netext/>
List-Post: <mailto:netext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext>, <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 13:49:56 -0000

All,
     I have completed my AD evaluation of
draft-ietf-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation as a part of the publication
process.  This document is well-written, concise, and nearly ready for
IETF Last Call.  I only have two comments/issues I would like to see
resolved.

1. The document uses several different terms to refer to the plane
responsible for the transit of user data.  I see "user plane" and "data
plane" used within the document.  Additionally, the folks in the routing
area use the term "forwarding plane".  Unless "user plane" is a
term-of-art within the mobility space, I would suggest harmonizing the
text and using a single term (data or forwarding) to describe the plane.

2. What is the plan for the publication of the CP separation
requirements document that is referenced in this document?  It seems
rather silly to publish the solution spec before the requirements.
Should they advance together?  Incorporate the requirements into this
document?

Once we iron these issues out, the publication process can proceed.

Regards,
Brian