Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-dmm-distributed-mobility-anchoring-13

Request Review of draft-ietf-dmm-distributed-mobility-anchoring
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 15)
Type Last Call Review
Team Transport Area Review Team (tsvart)
Deadline 2019-10-14
Requested 2019-09-30
Authors Anthony Chan , Xinpeng Wei , Jong-Hyouk Lee , Seil Jeon , Carlos J. Bernardos
I-D last updated 2019-10-14
Completed reviews Tsvart Last Call review of -13 by Yoshifumi Nishida (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -13 by Qin Wu (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -13 by Joseph A. Salowey (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -13 by Paul Kyzivat (diff)
Intdir Telechat review of -14 by Carlos Pignataro (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -14 by Joseph A. Salowey (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Yoshifumi Nishida
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-dmm-distributed-mobility-anchoring by Transport Area Review Team Assigned
Posted at
Reviewed revision 13 (document currently at 15)
Result Almost ready
Completed 2019-10-14
This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's
ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written
primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's
authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF
discussion list for information.

When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this
review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC if you reply to or forward this review.

Summary: This document is almost ready for publication as an informational RFC,
but it will be better to clarify the following points.

1: The examples shown in the draft look behave conveniently.
   For examples, in the figure 3 case, the flow is somehow terminated before
   the MN moves and is re-initiated after the movement has finished. However, I
   believe there should be the cases where applications don't aware of network
   changes and transmit data while migrating, which may cause packet drops,
   delays and timeouts, etc. I think this draft should clarify the treatments
   of these cases. Is it out of scope of the draft? Or, do some components
   generate ICMP messages to give some hints to the applications, or provide
   buffering features to mitigate the side effects?

2: Page 8:
   "A MN will need to choose which IP prefix/address to use for each flow
    according to whether it needs IP mobility support or not."

     -> It seems to me that the draft implicitly suggests the use of
     draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility here.
        If so, I think it would be better to state more explicitly. Or, do we
        have other options?

3: Page 10:
    "the initial anchor remains the anchor and forwards traffic"

     -> could be "anchor remains and the anchor.."?