Last Call Review of draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-15
review-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-15-genart-lc-housley-2019-01-03-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 18)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2019-01-16
Requested 2019-01-02
Authors Alper E. Yegin , Danny Moses , Seil Jeon
I-D last updated 2019-01-03
Completed reviews Intdir Early review of -14 by Brian Haberman (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -17 by Daniel Migault (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -15 by Éric Vyncke (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -15 by Russ Housley (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -15 by Magnus Westerlund (diff)
Rtgdir Telechat review of -15 by Jonathan Hardwick (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -16 by Daniel Migault (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -16 by Russ Housley (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Russ Housley
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 15 (document currently at 18)
Result Almost ready
Completed 2019-01-03
review-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-15-genart-lc-housley-2019-01-03-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-15
Reviewer: Russ Housley
Review Date: 2019-01-03
IETF LC End Date: 2019-01-16 
IESG Telechat date: unknown

Summary: Almost Ready


Major Concerns:

None.


Minor Concerns:

Section 2: Please update the first paragraph to reference RFC 8174
in addition to RFC 2119, as follows: 

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.


Nits:

Section 1: s/It should be noted that in/In/

Section 1 uses one style for listing two properties, and then Section 3
uses another style for listing four types of IP address.  Please pick
one style and use it in both places.

Section 4.1: s/secsc(/setsc(/  -- in a comment


Questions:

Should getsc() also be described in Section 6?

Should anything be added to the Security Considerations about CGA?