Skip to main content

Telechat Review of draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-15

Request Review of draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 18)
Type Telechat Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2019-01-23
Requested 2019-01-09
Requested by Alvaro Retana
Authors Alper E. Yegin , Danny Moses , Seil Jeon
I-D last updated 2019-01-24
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 Jonathan Hardwick
State Completed
Request Telechat review on draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility by Routing Area Directorate Assigned
Reviewed revision 15 (document currently at 18)
Result Has nits
Completed 2019-01-24
Hi there

I have done a routing directorate review of this draft.

The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts
as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special
request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs.
For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would
be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call
comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by
updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-15
Reviewer: Jon Hardwick
Review Date: 24 Jan 2019
Intended Status: Informational


The document was easy to read and absorb.

I found this sentence from the abstract a bit misleading: "This document
describes a solution for taking the application needs into account..."  The
word "solution" made me expect that the document would go into detail about how
an IP stack could request the different sorts of IP address from the network. 
In fact, you are proposing an API.  I would recommend changing to "This
document proposes an API that an application can use to inform the IP stack of
its requirements for session continuity and/or IP address reachability".

On a related point, is there any work you can refer to that provides a
mechanism for implementing this API?

The boilerplate in section 2 is out of date.  Please see RFC 8174 for the
latest boilerplate.

On page 6, I spotted a stray ")" in this sentence:

   It is outside the scope of this specification to define how the host
   requests a specific type of prefix and how the network indicates the
   type of prefix in its advertisement or in its reply to a request).