Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source-07

Request Review of draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 09)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2014-02-24
Requested 2014-02-13
Authors Thomas C. Schmidt , Shuai Gao , Hong-Ke Zhang , Matthias Wählisch
I-D last updated 2014-02-17
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -07 by David L. Black (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -08 by David L. Black (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -07 by Radia Perlman (diff)
Assignment Reviewer David L. Black
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 07 (document currently at 09)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2014-02-17
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-multimob-pmipv6-source-07
Reviewer: David L. Black
Review Date: Feb 16, 2014
IETF LC End Date: Feb 24, 2014

Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that
should be fixed before publication.

This draft describes multicast support for proxy mobile IPv6.  It assumes
significant understanding of multicast and specifically the PIM-SM protocol.

Nits/editorial comments:

-- Introduction, 3rd paragraph

Remove the word business from the following text, please:

             Such approaches (partially) follow
   the business model of providing multicast data services in parallel
   to PMIPv6 unicast routing [I-D.ietf-multimob-handover-optimization].

-- 4.3.1

The fact that PIM-SM has three phases could be made somewhat clearer here. 

   The granularity of mobility-related routing
   locators required in PIM depends on the complexity (phases) of its

   The following information is needed for all three phases of PIM as
   defined in [RFC4601].
   The granularity of mobility-related routing
   locators required in PIM depends on the complexity (specific phase)
   of its deployment.

   For all three phases of PIM deployment (see [RFC4601]), the following
   information is needed.

Also, is "deployment" the right word to describe the phases?  It implies
that not all of the phases need to be present in an implementation or
used, even if applicable.

-- 4.3.2 - 4.3.4

I would also suggest including the names of the phases from RFC 4601 in
these section titles, e.g.:

4.3.2.  Operations of PIM in Phase One (RP Tree)

-- idnits

idnits 2.13.01 found an unused reference and a couple of drafts that
have been updated:

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC2236' is defined on line 1047, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-02) exists of

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-07) exists of

David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786 at        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754