Telechat Review of draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-15
review-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-15-rtgdir-telechat-hardwick-2019-01-24-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 16)
Type Telechat Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2019-01-23
Requested 2019-01-09
Requested by Alvaro Retana
Other Reviews Intdir Early review of -14 by Brian Haberman (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -15 by Daniel Migault (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -15 by √Čric Vyncke (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -15 by Russ Housley (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -15 by Magnus Westerlund (diff)
Review State Completed
Reviewer Jonathan Hardwick
Review review-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-15-rtgdir-telechat-hardwick-2019-01-24
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/e-5rRdrJk4Y6hEZx0llf1JZZguc
Reviewed rev. 15 (document currently at 16)
Review result Has Nits
Draft last updated 2019-01-24
Review completed: 2019-01-24

Review
review-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-15-rtgdir-telechat-hardwick-2019-01-24

Hi there
 
I have done a routing directorate review of this draft.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility/
 
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 http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir
 
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

Comments
-----------

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).