Re: [netlmm] Last Call: draft-ietf-netlmm-mip-interactions (Interactions betweenPMIPv6 and MIPv6: scenarios and related issues) to Informational RFC

Hello folks,

Here are the rest of my comments on the
abovementioned Internet Draft.

====================================================================

 >           For this reason, it is recommended that when the MIPv6 home
 >  link is implemented as a PMIPv6 domain, the HA/LMA implementation
 >  treats the two protocol as independent.

Why not first recommend that the HA/LMA implement some
platform-specific mechanism for identifying the alternate
identifiers (e.g., MN-ID and MN-HoA)?

 >    "More in details the following principles ..."

-->  "In more detail, the following principles ..."

 >    "   ...  The mobile node needs to bootstrap"

-->  "   ...  The mobile node may need to bootstrap"

 >  service continuity.  Therefore the following steps must be performed
 >  by the UE:

-->

    service continuity.  Therefore the following steps might be
    performed by the MN:

In the following steps one and two: "needs to" --> "may need to"
In step three: "assign" --> "may assign"

"Since all these steps must" --> "If all these steps must"

"that the mobile node establishes" --> "that the mobile node establish"
or, better:
 >                                               it is recommended
 >    that the mobile node establishes
-->
                                  "the mobile node SHOULD establish"
along with a little rewording of the next subordinate clause.

"has Mobile IPv6 stack active"
--> "continues to make use of Mobile IPv6"

"as if it is attached" --> "as if it were attached"
-- BUT: in the scenario under discussion, isn't it?

[boot-integrated]:
	This citation needs to be updated; and, apparently it now
	has a distinguished author as well as an editor.  But, it's
	been in the RFC editor's queue for TWO YEARS?!  That's a
	new one on me.

"MN-HoA.For" --> "MN-HoA.  For"
	is this a bug in xml2rfc?

 >                                          For this reason, the mobile
 >  node must be configured to propose MN-HoA as the home address in the
 >  IKEv2 INTERNAL_IP6_ADDRESS attribute during the IKEv2 exchange with
 >  the HA/LMA.

I think this qualifies as another requirement placed by PMIP
on MIPv6 nodes.  Maybe it would be a good idea to make a new
section and list these requirements newly placed by PMIP.

I'm starting to wonder whether these new mandates might
belong in rfc3775bis.

"When the mobile node hands over" --> "When the mobile node migrates to"
	<basestations perform handovers, not mobile nodes>

 >                                                                The
 >    mobile node may set the R bit defined in NEMO specification

a) citation required for "NEMO specification"
b) "NEMO specification" --> "the NEMO specification"
c) _ouch_!  Now we have a new mandate placed by PMIP onto NEMO.<!>

"is created irrespective" --> "may be created regardless"
	<I think it is unwise to prohibit implementers from
	 coordinating the binding cache entries of PMIP and
	 MIPv6 if they serve the same mobile node, as I have
	 mentioned earlier>

"In this section it is assumed"
-->
"In this section we consider the case where"

 > 4.3.  Solutions related to scenario B

This conflicts with the sentence in section 1:

 >                                        this document presents and
 >    identifies all issues pertained to these scenarios and discusses
 >    possible means and mechanisms that are recommended to enable them.

====================================================================

On 5/3/2010 7:24 AM, The IESG wrote:
> The IESG has received a request from the Network-based Localized Mobility
> Management WG (netlmm) to consider the following document:
>
> - 'Interactions between PMIPv6 and MIPv6: scenarios and related issues '
>     <draft-ietf-netlmm-mip-interactions-05.txt>  as an Informational RFC
>
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> final comments on this action.  Please send substantive comments to the
> ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2010-05-17. Exceptionally,
> comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please
> retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>
> The file can be obtained via
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-netlmm-mip-interactions-05.txt
>
>
> IESG discussion can be tracked via
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=17831&rfc_flag=0
>
> _______________________________________________
> IETF-Announce mailing list
> IETF-Announce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
>