Early Review of draft-ietf-dmm-mag-multihoming-02
review-ietf-dmm-mag-multihoming-02-intdir-early-jiang-2017-01-19-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-dmm-mag-multihoming |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 07) | |
Type | Early Review | |
Team | Internet Area Directorate (intdir) | |
Deadline | 2017-01-19 | |
Requested | 2017-01-04 | |
Requested by | Suresh Krishnan | |
Authors | Pierrick Seite , Alper E. Yegin , Sri Gundavelli | |
I-D last updated | 2017-01-19 | |
Completed reviews |
Intdir Early review of -02
by Sheng Jiang
(diff)
Genart Last Call review of -03 by Robert Sparks (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -03 by Hilarie Orman (diff) Genart Telechat review of -04 by Robert Sparks (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Sheng Jiang |
State | Completed | |
Request | Early review on draft-ietf-dmm-mag-multihoming by Internet Area Directorate Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 02 (document currently at 07) | |
Result | Almost ready | |
Completed | 2017-01-19 |
review-ietf-dmm-mag-multihoming-02-intdir-early-jiang-2017-01-19-00
Reviewer: Sheng Jiang Review result: Almost Ready I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-dmm-mag-multihoming-02. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat these comments just like they would treat comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve them along with any other Last Call comments that have been received. For more details on the INT Directorate, see http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate.html. Review Date:2017-1-19 Review Type : Early Review IESG Telechat date: Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a standard track RFC. Major issues: Minor issues: The figure 2 seems imply a consecutive order of these steps, while some steps could and should be parallel, such as establishing the two connectivities, and the IP address assignment and data flow could and should start if one connectivity has established, but another is still in process. I guess authors have the same understanding. If so, adding some clarification text could address this issue. The abstract seems to contain references, such as[RFC3963], etc., which it shouldn't. These references should be replaced by straight textual mentions of the documents. The IANA consideration seems not in normal format. However, the required actions for IANA are described clearly. Nits: In abstract, "multiple Care-of Addresses (CoAs) capabilities of Mobile IP an Network Mobility (NEMO)..." an // and In section 1, "In the continuation of [RFC4908], a Proxy Mobile IPv6 [RFC5213] based multihomed achitecture." achitecture // architecture also in section 1, "using GRE as mobile tuneling" Tuneling//tunneling Regards, Sheng