Subject: [DMM] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-dmm-pmipv6-dlif-06: (with COMMENT)

From: Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2020 02:47:10 -0700

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dmm-pmipv6-dlif-06: 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-dmm-pmipv6-dlif/

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

Thanks for addressing my discuss and adding section 3.6. I know that the text
there is inline with RFC6275 and therefore I'm clearing my discuss. However I
just notice that its says

" The node MAY continue to send these
           messages at this slower rate indefinitely."

I think allowing to send something indefinitely is always a bad idea. This is a
MAY but given there is no alternative provided, I guess it's not unlikely that
people will implement it this way. It's always better to have a defined
termination condition. This could be something like "SHOULD stop sending after
X <timeunit> and log an error" where X <timeunit> is a super high value in e.g.
days. This would implicitly also allow to send indefinitely because it's a
SHOULD but would make it less likely people implement that. I personal would
however even recommend a MUST.

In any case, as RFC6275 has exactly the same sentence, so I'm not blocking on
this, but maybe still worth reconsidering...

---------
Old comments: I fully understand why the authors decided to not make changes
but keeping these as for the record:

4) As section 3.6 talks mainly about implementation details, I suggest to move
this section into the appendix.

7) One overall editorial comment which might be too late to address: I would
have found it more easy to read if you would have first introduced the new
messages and then used the concrete message names in the description in section
3.