[RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr-08.txt
"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com> Mon, 27 February 2012 07:29 UTC
Return-Path: <ginsberg@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56E0F21F8526 for <rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Feb 2012 23:29:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.266
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.266 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.333, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KDZyengY0KT3 for <rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Feb 2012 23:28:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mtv-iport-4.cisco.com (mtv-iport-4.cisco.com [173.36.130.15]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CFF421F851D for <rtg-dir@ietf.org>; Sun, 26 Feb 2012 23:28:59 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=ginsberg@cisco.com; l=2301; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1330327739; x=1331537339; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:from:to:cc; bh=g62ZMPmnSU+wRDvauIx+uPnqFemMmJ9O2E1Sush9lY4=; b=i3ILEhUHZHBP1ZdPKh/KocE44BZNUtCbWkrlcpv25CN1ELfP5f9g+E05 Og9w0Yc/p/v5llP7t4GtX0szHQXZKPvMtOGJbLJrUf1g29KWMcG5ydaFj c6TVG08OMOw1bAV7hzxFY24ZKyQSn0GNv4WQS0zXLwCspami6H/RALqTX U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EABcwS0+rRDoI/2dsb2JhbABDs1qBB4F1AQQSAR0KPxIBHA4GGAdXAQQbARmHYwELoFoBlj2NFgcHAgELAQEKAwJEEQkChEEFfQ4HBAYaDoI7YwSIT599
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,490,1325462400"; d="scan'208";a="32571177"
Received: from mtv-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.58.8]) by mtv-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Feb 2012 07:28:58 +0000
Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by mtv-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q1R7Sw3V023222; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 07:28:58 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-222.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.106]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sun, 26 Feb 2012 23:28:58 -0800
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 23:28:56 -0800
Message-ID: <AE36820147909644AD2A7CA014B1FB5210D0F107@xmb-sjc-222.amer.cisco.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr-08.txt
Thread-Index: Acz1IHG1hUuhpJ7bSE66fe92hHq8QA==
From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
To: rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Feb 2012 07:28:58.0421 (UTC) FILETIME=[78141650:01CCF521]
Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr.all@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr-08.txt
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <rtg-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtg-dir>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 07:29:00 -0000
(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. 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? Similarly, in Section 6.1 it is assumed that LMAs always forward inter-MN packets regardless of the state of LR? 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?
- [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-netext-pmip-l… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-netext-pmip-l… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-netext-pm… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-netext-pm… Suresh Krishnan
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-netext-pm… Suresh Krishnan