Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source-07

From: "Black, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 22:22:43 -0500

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-source-07
Reviewer: David L. Black
Review Date: Feb 16, 2014
IETF LC End Date: Feb 24, 2014

Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that
should be fixed before publication.

This draft describes multicast support for proxy mobile IPv6.  It assumes
significant understanding of multicast and specifically the PIM-SM protocol.

Nits/editorial comments:

-- Introduction, 3rd paragraph

Remove the word business from the following text, please:

             Such approaches (partially) follow
   the business model of providing multicast data services in parallel
   to PMIPv6 unicast routing [I-D.ietf-multimob-handover-optimization].

-- 4.3.1

The fact that PIM-SM has three phases could be made somewhat clearer here. 
Suggestion:

OLD
   The granularity of mobility-related routing
   locators required in PIM depends on the complexity (phases) of its
   deployment.

   The following information is needed for all three phases of PIM as
   defined in [RFC4601].
NEW
   The granularity of mobility-related routing
   locators required in PIM depends on the complexity (specific phase)
   of its deployment.

   For all three phases of PIM deployment (see [RFC4601]), the following
   information is needed.

Also, is "deployment" the right word to describe the phases?  It implies
that not all of the phases need to be present in an implementation or
used, even if applicable.

-- 4.3.2 - 4.3.4

I would also suggest including the names of the phases from RFC 4601 in
these section titles, e.g.:

4.3.2.  Operations of PIM in Phase One (RP Tree)

-- idnits

idnits 2.13.01 found an unused reference and a couple of drafts that
have been updated:

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC2236' is defined on line 1047, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-02) exists of
     draft-ietf-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast-01

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-07) exists of
     draft-ietf-multimob-handover-optimization-06

Thanks,
--David
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
[email-masked]        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Thomas C. Schmidt" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 11:41:09 +0100

Hi David,

many thanks for the review and the feedback.

Please see responses inline.

>     to PMIPv6 unicast routing [I-D.ietf-multimob-handover-optimization].

O.K., done.

>     For all three phases of PIM deployment (see [RFC4601]), the following

O.K., done

> used, even if applicable.

You're right. We have reworded

     For all three phases in the operation of PIM (see [RFC4601]), the 
following information is needed.

Thanks, done.

>       reference was found in the text

Oh, a lapse - RFC2236 is listed mainly for historic/compatibility 
reasons. It is referenced now.

>       draft-ietf-multimob-handover-optimization-06

This is due to an update problem of the online tool (ID database), which 
seems fixed now.

Thanks again!

We will update the document as soon as the submission re-opens.

Best regards,

Thomas
-- 

Prof. Dr. Thomas C. Schmidt
° Hamburg University of Applied Sciences                   Berliner Tor 7 °
° Dept. Informatik, Internet Technologies Group    20099 Hamburg, Germany °
° http://www.haw-hamburg.de/inet                   Fon: +49-40-42875-8452 °
° http://www.informatik.haw-hamburg.de/~schmidt    Fax: +49-40-42875-8409 °