Early Review of draft-ietf-dmm-lma-controlled-mag-params-02
review-ietf-dmm-lma-controlled-mag-params-02-intdir-early-droms-2016-12-21-00

Major issues:  None

Minor issues:

The mechanism described in this document is fairly simple.  I recommend that
the specific semantics of the use of the parameter options should be explained
with greater clarity to ensure correct and interoperable implementations.  For
example, I found the description of LMA behavior in section 5.1 to be quite
convoluted and confusing.  Putting the "if...then...else" construct in two
bullets seemed obtuse.  In the first bullet, the LMA "SHOULD include" the
sub-option.  Are there circumstances under which the LMA would not include the
sub-option and, if so, what are those circumstances?  Can the LMA decide,
perhaps for efficiency, to return the sub-option in only, say, one of ten
responses to the MAG?

Is there a specific reason for encoding the LAM Controlled MAG Session
Parameters as sub-options under the LAM-Controlled-MAG-Parameters option?  Will
additional sub-options be defined in the future?

Editorial issues.

For clarity, the document should use acronyms and names for system components
in a consistent way: use acronyms throughout and expand the acronym on first
use.  For example, LMA and "local mobility anchor" are used interchangeably
throughout the document, which this reviewer found to be distracting.

What is the expansion for "PBU"?

The use of the "Configuration Variables" defined in section 4 is repeated in
section 5.1.  To avoid internal inconsistency, I recommend that the use of the
variable be described only once, with internal pointers to that text from other
places in the document.

In section 6, it would help the reader to include the name of the registry to
be modified in the first bullet.