Skip to main content

Telechat Review of draft-ietf-mip4-multiple-tunnel-support-12

Request Review of draft-ietf-mip4-multiple-tunnel-support
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 13)
Type Telechat Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2015-06-09
Requested 2015-06-04
Authors Sri Gundavelli , Kent Leung , George Tsirtsis , Alexandre Petrescu
Draft last updated 2015-07-16
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -12 by Vijay K. Gurbani (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -12 by Vijay K. Gurbani (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -12 by Jürgen Schönwälder (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Vijay K. Gurbani
State Completed
Review review-ietf-mip4-multiple-tunnel-support-12-genart-telechat-gurbani-2015-07-16
Reviewed revision 12 (document currently at 13)
Result Ready with Nits
Completed 2015-07-16
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-mip4-multiple-tunnel-support-12
Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani
Review Date: May-15-2015
IETF LC End Date: May-25-2015
IESG Telechat date: Not known

This document is ready as an Experimental Standard.  A couple of points
below need addressing, though.

Major: 0
Minor: 2
Nits:  1

1/ S4.1, second paragraph: "This extension is a non-skippable extension
   and MAY be added by the mobile node to the Registration Request

   Two comments.

   First, does "non-skippable" mean "MUST be present"?  If so, why "non-
   skippable"?  At least I have not seen such a phrase in an IETF
   document before.  My suggestion would be to simply say that "This
   extension MUST be present and ..."

   Which brings us to the second comment.

   "... and MAY be added by the mobile node ..."  This extension is
   "non-skippable" (?) but a mobile node MAY add it.  If the extension
   is "non-skippable", then why the MAY?

   Furthermore, if the intent is for some other entity to add this
   extension if the mobile node does not (hence the justification of
   MAY), then you should spell out who this entity is.  (Sort of
   how you do it in S4.2, second paragraph, which contains almost
   identical language to above without the qualifying last phrase
   that informs the reader who will add the extension if not the
   mobile node.)

2/ S4.2, second paragraph: Consider changing the "non-skippable"
   to "MUST be present" (c.f., above comment).

1/ S2.2, the following sentence does not read well:
   A mobile node, when it registers multiple bindings with its home
   agent, each using different care-of addresses, then each of those
   bindings are given a unique identifier.

 Suggested text:

   When a mobile node registers multiple bindings with its home
   agent, each using a different care-of address, then each of those
   bindings are given a unique identifier.


- vijay
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA)
Email: vkg@{,} / vijay.gurbani at

  | Calendar: