[netext] Pete Resnick's No Objection on draft-ietf-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation-05: (with COMMENT)

["Pete Resnick" <[e-mail]>]

Pete Resnick has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation-05: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

A few weirdnesses in section 4:

   There can be multiple
   instances of the LMA User Plane Address mobility option present in
   the message, one for IPv4 and the other for IPv6 transport.
   
Do you really mean "there can be multiple instances", or do you rather
mean "there can be either one or two instances: One for IPv4, one for
IPv6, or one for each of them"?

      ...the IP address field
      in the option can be either a zero-length field, or...

Two instances of the above. Should that "can" be a MUST?

   ...the IP address field in the option MUST be set...

In the above and the two bullet items below it: Shouldn't the "MUST be"
in each one instead be "is"? There's no protocol requirement there. What
else *could* an implementation do?