[netext] draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob-08

[Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,

I was reading this document once more and this point somehow sticks so I
thought I should share with the WG:

Section 3.2.1 presents a solution with LMA assigning the same prefix to
different interfaces of MN.

So the draft can easily say that this is the solution to flow mobility in
PMIP, PMIP is extended to adopt this prefix-assignment policy and here is
the solution.

Why continue and present another solution in Section 3.2.2?

Another comment on Section 3.1.
Why are these three the only use cases?
I served in the editorial team initially and the main use cases were
MAG-initiated flow mobility and LMA-initiated flow mobility and actually
there were many solution drafts proposing solution for each and those
drafts were taken as input by the editorial team.

What happened to that in Section 3.1?

Regards,

Behcet