Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation-04.txt

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2014 16:16:59 +1200

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-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation-04.txt
Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review Date: 2014-06-22
IETF LC End Date: 2014-07-02
IESG Telechat date:

Summary:  Ready with nits
--------

Nits:
-----

>    IP-within-IP encapsulation [RFC2473]

That RFC is specific to IP-in-IPv6. Do you also need to cite something for
IPv6-in-IPv4 encapsulation? (It isn't clear to me whether the tunnel
shown in Fig. 1 is always -in-IPv6. If it is, OK.)

>   LMA User Plane Address
>
>      Contains the 32-bit IPv4 address, or the 128-bit IPv6 of the LMA

s/IPv6/IPv6 address/

>   o  When using IPv4 transport for the user-plane, the IP address field
>      in the option must be the IPv4 address carrying user-plane
>      traffic.
>
>   o  When using IPv6 transport for the user-plane, the IP address field
>      in the option must be the IPv6 address carrying user-plane
>      traffic.

Should those two occurrences of must be MUST?