Skip to main content

Early Review of draft-ietf-dmm-mag-multihoming-02

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 Snapshot
Review review-ietf-dmm-mag-multihoming-02-intdir-early-jiang-2017-01-19
Reviewed revision 02 (document currently at 07)
Result Almost ready
Completed 2017-01-19
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

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.


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]

   multihomed achitecture."

achitecture // architecture

also in section 1, "using GRE as mobile tuneling"