Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr-08.txt

[Suresh Krishnan <[e-mail]>]

Hi Les,
  Thanks for the review. Please find responses inline.

On 02/27/2012 02:28 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
> (Resending w corrected draft address)
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft.
> The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related
> drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review. The purpose
> of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more
> information about the Routing Directorate, please see
> http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/routing.html
> 
> Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it
> would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF
> Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through
> discussion or by updating the draft.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr-08
> Reviewer: Les Ginsberg
> Review Date: 26 February 2012
> IETF LC End Date: ???
> Intended Status: Standards Track
> 
> Summary:
> I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be
> resolved before publication.
> 
> Comments:
> This document is clearly written and easy to understand.
> This is the first PMIP document I have reviewed, so I went back and read
> some of the previous RFCs. Despite that it may mean that some of my
> comments/questions are naive. Please indulge me.
> 
> Major Issues:
> No major issues found.
> 
> Minor Issues:
> 
> Why are you not using the "MN-CN" terminology from RFC 6279? The fact
> that you use "MN-MN" makes me think that you are only addressing cases
> where both endpoints are MNs. Is this the case? If so, this should be
> explicitly stated. If not, it would seem to be better to use the RFC
> 6279 terminology.

Your understanding is correct. I will add a statement to that effect.

> 
> Section 5
> 
> I assume the lack of requirement for synchronization works because the
> LMA will always forward packets regardless of whether it has sent an
> LRI/received an LRA? This implies that MNs and MAGs may receive
> duplicate packets at times - which presumably should be no problem. I am
> wondering if it would be useful to discuss these points?

In the handover case, the MAG2 will continue sending packets to MAG1
until the LMA establishes new LR state towards nMAG1, and these packets
will be lost. I will add text to this section to make this clear.

> 
> Similarly, in Section 6.1 it is assumed that LMAs always forward
> inter-MN packets regardless of the state of LR?

There will be no inter-LMA forwarding in this case during handover. The
wg decided not to handle this case (A22) because there is no defined
inter-LMA communication mechanism in PMIPv6.

> 
> Nits:
> A number of acronyms are used without definition. For example, in
> Section 4 page 7 "HNP" "BUL" "BCE" are all undefined. This does not
> represent a complete list. Can you please scrub the document for all
> such occurences?

These are inherited from the base PMIP RFC (RFC5213). Would you still
like me to add the expansions here?

Thanks
Suresh