[tram] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-tram-turn-mobility-05: (with COMMENT)

["Suresh Krishnan" <[e-mail]>]

Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tram-turn-mobility-05: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tram-turn-mobility/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

* Section 3

In the figure (without number/title) why is there an Allocate failure in
the second message? I could not find the associated text.

* Section 3.2.1

The section on sending a Refresh when the IP address does not change
needs a little bit more tightening. Given that the server would reject
the request with a mobility ticket in this case, it would be good to put
in an explicit restriction to not add the mobility ticket in the
following statement

OLD: 
If a client wants to refresh an existing allocation and update its
time-to-expiry or delete an existing allocation, it will send a Refresh
Request as described in Section 7.1 of [RFC5766]

NEW:
If a client wants to refresh an existing allocation and update its
time-to-expiry or delete an existing allocation, it MUST send a Refresh
Request as described in Section 7.1 of [RFC5766] and MUST NOT include a
MOBILITY-TICKET attribute.