Re: [netext] AD review of draft-ietf-netext-bulk-re-registration

Dear all,

Referring to the suggested additional WG reviews of the updated draft I want to share with you the minor nits I found ;-)

1. Intro

provides a more optimal mechanism => provides a considerably improved mechanism
(afaik 'optimal' already denotes the best)

3.1. Motivation

revocation operations on a group on mobility sessions => revocation operations on a group of mobility sessions

3.2. General Operation

P.7
respectively, while the LMA assigns them both to the same to the
bulk
=> respectively, while the LMA assigns them both to the same bulk

part of bulk binding update group, L1.  =>  part of bulk binding update group, (L1).

4.1 Extensions to Proxy Binding Update Message

Figure 2 => Figure 2: Proxy Binding Update Message
(to have consistency to 4.2.)

'bulk binding operation group' (occurs 3 times in the draft, see p.12) is not defined?! Shouldn't it read => 'bulk binding update group' ?

group and thus any any binding update => group and thus any binding update

5.1 MAG Considerations

identifies the list of bulk binding update group specific to each
=> identifies the list of bulk binding update groups specific to each

5.1.1

Proxy Binding Update message.  If there is no such grouping is
=> Proxy Binding Update message.  If there is no such grouping

5.2.1.

given mobility session to a specific bulk binding update group is
=> given mobility session to a specific bulk binding update group are

P.16
if the if the received Proxy Binding Update from the new mobile
=> if the received Proxy Binding Update from the new mobile

5.2.2

Currently, this specification only support sub-type value of (1)
=> Currently, this specification only supports sub-type value of (1)

0 (Proxy Binding Update accepted).  => (0) (Proxy Binding Update accepted).

6.2. Mobile Access Gateway - Configuration Variables

this flag is set to (1), indicating that the the mobile access
=> this flag is set to (1), indicating that the mobile access

9. Acknowledgements

Patil Carlos Jesus Bernardos Cano and Jari Arkko for their reviews
=> Patil, Carlos Jesus Bernardos Cano, and Jari Arkko for their reviews

Thanks and best regards
Dirk

Von: netext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:netext-bounces@ietf.org] Im Auftrag von Jari Arkko
Gesendet: Dienstag, 3. Januar 2012 09:33
An: Sri Gundavelli
Cc: netext@ietf.org; draft-ietf-netext-bulk-re-registration@tools.ietf.org
Betreff: Re: [netext] AD review of draft-ietf-netext-bulk-re-registration

Sri:

Thanks for the update! I have reviewed the changes and they look good to me with one exception (below). I have in any case requested an IETF Last Call to be initiated and expect that you fix the remaining issues by issuing yet another draft quickly.

But the changes are pretty big -- it would also be useful if members of the WG reviewed the document while it is in the Last Call.

> o  When sending the Mobile Node Group Identifier option in the
>   binding update messages related to the individual session
>   establishment, the Bulk-Binding-Update (B) flag in the request
>   MUST be set to a value of (1).  However, when initiating any
>   binding update operations with group specific scope, the Bulk-
>   Binding-Update (B) flag in the request MUST always be set to a
>   value of (0), with the Mobile Node Group Identifier option present
>   in the request.

There is something wrong with the above text. B must be set in the session establishment, but not with "binding update operations with group specific scope"? (And what are those?)

Jari

_______________________________________________
netext mailing list
netext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext