Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-Art review of draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-ropt-07.txt

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 11:17:13 +0100

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on 
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ 
at<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

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

Document: draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-ropt-07.txt

Reviewer: Alexey Melnikov

Review Date: 16 July 2013

IETF LC End Date: 3 July 2013

IESG Telechat date: 18 July 2013

Summary: Ready for publication as an Experimental RFC with some nits

Major issues: None

Minor issues:

In 5.1.2:

Dynamic IP Multicast Selector Mode Flag:

       This field indicates the subscription via MTMA/direct routing
       mode.  If the (M) flag value is set to a value of (1), it is an
       indication that the IP multicast traffic associated to the
       multicast group(s) identified by the Multicast Address Record(s)
       in this mobility option SHOULD be routed locally (subscription via
       direct routing mode).  If the (M) flag value is set to a value of
       (0), it is an indication that IP multicast traffic associated to
       the multicast group(s) identified by the Multicast Address Record
       in this mobility option(s) SHOULD be routed to the home network,
       via the MTMA (subscription via MTMA mode).  All other IP traffic
       associated with the mobile node SHOULD be managed according to a
       default policy configured at the PMIPv6 multicast domain.

The last sentence: I don't think you should use RFC 2119 SHOULD here.
I think you are saying that this document doesn't affect all other IP
traffic. So just use "is managed" instead of "SHOULD be managed".

Is IANA Considerations section clear to IANA? I suggest you add at least 
the URI for the IANA registry.
Is IANA registration policy compatible with the type of document 
(Experimental)? I can't check that, as I don't know which registry you 
are talking about.

Nits/editorial comments:

In 3.3: acronyms PBU and PBA need to be expanded on first use. They are 
expanded further down in the document.

---

From: Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 20:42:18 +0200

Hi Alexey,

Thanks a lot for the review. Please see below some comments inline.

On Tue, 2013-07-16 at 11:17 +0100, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> 
OK, updated in version -08 (to be submitted once we get all the
comments).

> 
> Is IANA Considerations section clear to IANA? I suggest you add at
> least the URI for the IANA registry.
The IANA has not complained about it, but we will update the text in -08
so it reads like this:

9.  IANA Considerations

   This document defines a new mobility option, the Dynamic IP Multicast
   Selector, which has been assigned the Type TBD by IANA.  The Type
   value for these options has been assigned from the same numbering
   space as allocated for the other mobility options, as defined in
   [RFC6275]: http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters/
   mobility-parameters.xhtml.
> 
>  
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> 
> 
> 
> In 3.3: acronyms PBU and PBA need to be expanded on first use. They
> are expanded further down in the document.

Fixed in -08, thanks.

Thanks again for the review,

Carlos