Last Call Review of draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-ropt-06
review-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-ropt-06-genart-lc-melnikov-2013-07-03-00

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft.
        For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at

 

<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>

.







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




 




Document:


        draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-ropt-07.txt




Reviewer: Alexey Melnikov




Review Date: 16 July 2013




IETF LC End Date: 3 July 2013




IESG Telechat date: 18 July 2013




 




Summary: Ready for publication as an Experimental
          RFC with some nits










Major issues: None




 




Minor issues:











        In 5.1.2:





        Dynamic IP Multicast Selector Mode Flag:





              This field indicates the subscription via MTMA/direct
        routing


              mode.  If the (M) flag value is set to a value of (1), it
        is an


              indication that the IP multicast traffic associated to the


              multicast group(s) identified by the Multicast Address
        Record(s)


              in this mobility option SHOULD be routed locally
        (subscription via


              direct routing mode).  If the (M) flag value is set to a
        value of


              (0), it is an indication that IP multicast traffic
        associated to


              the multicast group(s) identified by the Multicast Address
        Record


              in this mobility option(s) SHOULD be routed to the home
        network,


              via the MTMA (subscription via MTMA mode).  All other IP
        traffic


              associated with the mobile node SHOULD be managed
        according to a


              default policy configured at the PMIPv6 multicast domain.





        The last sentence: I don't think you should use RFC 2119 SHOULD
        here.


        I think you are saying that this document doesn't affect all
        other IP


        traffic. So just use "is managed" instead of "SHOULD be
        managed".








        Is IANA Considerations section clear to IANA? I suggest you add
        at least the URI for the IANA registry.


        Is IANA registration policy compatible with the type of document
        (Experimental)? I can't check that, as I don't know which
        registry you are talking about.













 




Nits/editorial comments:













In 3.3: acronyms PBU and PBA need to be
        expanded on first use. They are expanded further down in the
        document.