Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-art re-review of draft-ietf-monami6-multiplecoa-11.txt

From: Elwyn Davies <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 17:58:22 +0000

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
_http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html_).

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-monami6-multiplecoa-11.txt
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 19 January 2009
IETF LC End Date: -
IESG Telechat date: (if known) -

Summary:
Most of the issues in the review of -10 have been resolved by this version.
However, a couple of new issues have been introduced by the revisions.

Comments:
Minor Issues:

Backwards compatibility:   Although an extended discussion of backwards
compatibility has been added to the end of section 3, it would (still) be
helpful to explain in the introduction that this proposal is backwards
compatible with the RFC 3775 scheme and the updates in RFC4140, RFC3963, and
RFC5213 - and give a pointer to s3 for further info.

Extension to IPv4 correspondents etc: Something about this in the
introduction would also help.

s4.2 and s11: Moving the overwrite flag to the Binding Update Message means that
the extra 'O' flag needs to be registered with IANA in the registry defined in
RFC 5213.  This needs to be mentioned in s11 also.  Treatment of the reserved
field needs to be specified (as per 3775).

s4.4 (MCOA NOTCOMPLETE) and elsewhere (s6.2):  From correspondence about this
section in -10 (where it was s4.3):
>> If bulk registrations are not transactional (which I
>> would have preferred) need to make it clear what happens with the
>> various multiple mobility options when some are succcessful and some fail.
> 
> It is not designed as transactional.
> However, it might be a case when HA cannot accept more than two bindings, but MN sends 3 CoAs in bulk BU.
> In such case, HA should accept two bindings and reject one. In the BA, HA should set  either one of those error codes for the rejected BID.
>      128 Reason unspecified
>      129 Administratively prohibited
>      130 Insufficient resources
> 
> I didn't make any modification to this comments.
> If this reason is reasonable and is worth to write in the draft,
> I will add new texts. 

I think it would be useful to add this sort of comment.

s5.6.3 (3rd bullet):  'The mobile node SHOULD include the Mobility Header
Link-layer Address (LLA) Option': The explanation of circumstances in which
omitting the link layer address (e.g., point to point links ) is feasible should
be included (as per correspondence).

s5.6.4 (3rd top level bullet): 'the home agent SHOULD use the link-layer
address carried by the Link Layer Address option':  See last point.

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 22:41:02 +0200

Thanks for your review, Elwyn. All of this seems reasonable to add to 
the draft. Authors, can you spin a new version for this and for Pasi's 
remaining issues?

Jari