Skip to main content

Last Call 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 Last Call Review
Team Transport Area Review Team (tsvart)
Deadline 2019-01-16
Requested 2019-01-02
Authors Alper E. Yegin , Danny Moses , Seil Jeon
I-D last updated 2019-01-08
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 Magnus Westerlund
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility by Transport Area Review Team Assigned
Reviewed revision 15 (document currently at 18)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2019-01-08
This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's
ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written
primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's
authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF
discussion list for information.

When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this
review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC if you reply to or forward this review.

First of all I do become a bit uncertain about the intentions of this document.
As an informational document I think discussing an possible optimization and
how it can be solved is all okay. What I fail to see the point and a likely a
source of confusion is the draft socket API changes which may be considered as
solutions. However, an detailed solution to the problem space requires one to
actually dig into some of the areas the document explicitly calls outside of
its intentions. Thus, I wished the document was a bit clearer on its purpose of
only sketching an idea and be firmer of not actually offering a ready solution
that can be implemented. Thus, I think there are risks with having something
that appears to define a socket API extension. If the intention is to actually
define socket API extensions then I think there are much more that needs to be
defined and solved.

Secondly, I think the proponents of this work should have a long and serious
discussion if the ongoing work in the TAPS WG can actually provide an better
way forward for the API as well as provide an improvement to the TAPS
architecture. Because if an application specifies its needs for session
continuity then an TAPS implementation could fulfill this either using a
combination of TCP with Session lasting IP address or with Non-persistent IP
address and transport protocols that has built in session mobility or
continuity features such as MPTCP or QUIC.