[RTG-DIR] Rtgdir telechat review of draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-15
Jonathan Hardwick <firstname.lastname@example.org> Thu, 24 January 2019 23:03 UTC
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AED01311F5; Thu, 24 Jan 2019 15:03:04 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
From: Jonathan Hardwick <email@example.com>
Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2019 15:03:04 -0800
Subject: [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir telechat review of draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-15
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <rtg-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-dir>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dir>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2019 23:03:05 -0000
Reviewer: Jonathan Hardwick Review result: Has Nits Hi there I have done a routing directorate review of this draft. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility/ The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir 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-dmm-ondemand-mobility-15 Reviewer: Jon Hardwick Review Date: 24 Jan 2019 Intended Status: Informational Comments ----------- The document was easy to read and absorb. I found this sentence from the abstract a bit misleading: "This document describes a solution for taking the application needs into account..." The word "solution" made me expect that the document would go into detail about how an IP stack could request the different sorts of IP address from the network. In fact, you are proposing an API. I would recommend changing to "This document proposes an API that an application can use to inform the IP stack of its requirements for session continuity and/or IP address reachability". On a related point, is there any work you can refer to that provides a mechanism for implementing this API? The boilerplate in section 2 is out of date. Please see RFC 8174 for the latest boilerplate. On page 6, I spotted a stray ")" in this sentence: It is outside the scope of this specification to define how the host requests a specific type of prefix and how the network indicates the type of prefix in its advertisement or in its reply to a request).
- [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir telechat review of draft-ietf-... Jonathan Hardwick
- Re: [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir telechat review of draft-i... Moses, Danny
- Re: [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir telechat review of draft-i... Jonathan Hardwick