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

From: "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 17:07:21 +0000

Hi Brian,

Thanks for the review feedback. Apologies for the delay in responding this
email.
Please see inline.

On 6/21/14 9:16 PM, "Brian E Carpenter" <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>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.)

Sure. Based on the address type in the option and the flags in the PBU,
the encap mode is chosen. RFC4213 is the closest reference that we can add
for IPv6 in IPv4 encap.

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

Ok.

>
>>   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?

Ok.

Regards
Sri