Generic Notification Message for Mobile IPv4
draft-ietf-mip4-generic-notification-message-16

There are plenty of usage scenarios listed in Section 3. But the
document is very short of examples of what the notification might be
used for (just a little in Seciton 5). I don't see any I-Ds in the 
working group proposing uses of this extension, and there is nothing
referenced from this I-D. Are you sure that you haven't invented a 
protocol mechanism without any specific requirements? Will you be
cluttering the protocol implementations with support for messages
that will never be used?

I note that the protocol write-up does not mention any implementations
or plans for implementaiton.

---

idnits says
** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1750 (Obsoleted by RFC 4086)

---

Section 2
s/terms are/term is/

---

Section 4.3 needs to say when to give up retransmitting, and what to 
do with a GNAM that arrives for a GNM that was transmitted several
retransmissions ago.

I am on the edge of Abstaining on this document, due to its readability.

The document is hard to read. Also it contains lots of duplicated text, so it is hard to verify if various sections of it consistent.


5.  Future Extensibility


This section needs to be edited for readability.


6.  IANA Considerations

   This document describes two new messages, the GNM in section 4.1 and
   the GNAM in section 4.2.  These two messages SHOULD be allocated from
   the same address space used by the Registration Request and
   Registration Reply messages in [RFC3344].  The subtype of these two
   messages indicate what kind of information is carried and will be
   under assigned by IANA namespace.

The last sentence doesn't read well.

The v6 Mobile IP work seems to be taking a very different approach to this kind of problem. Please look to see if there's an opportunity for some alignment here?

  The authors have agreed to make several changes based on the Gen-ART
  Review by Sean Turner that was posted on 7-Sep-2009.

1) In Section 4.1 of the description of "A": 

 Set to "1" to indicate that acknowledgement is required.

Set to "0" to indicate that acknowledgement is optional.

Should they be REQUIRED and OPTIONAL?

2) In the final paragraph of 4.1: there are a lot of statements about this is required and this is optional.  Shouldn't these use 2119 language?

3) In section 4.2 (identification and extensions):  there are a lot of statements about this is required, this is mandatory, and this is optional.  Shouldn't these use 2119 language?