Last Call Review of draft-ietf-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation-04
review-ietf-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation-04-genart-lc-carpenter-2014-06-22-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 07) | |
| Type | IETF Last Call Review | |
| Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
| Deadline | 2014-07-02 | |
| Requested | 2014-06-19 | |
| Authors | Ryuji Wakikawa , Rajesh Pazhyannur , Sri Gundavelli , Charles E. Perkins | |
| I-D last updated | 2015-10-14 (Latest revision 2014-08-30) | |
| Completed reviews |
Genart IETF Last Call review of -04
by Brian E. Carpenter
(diff)
Genart Telechat review of -05 by Brian E. Carpenter (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Brian E. Carpenter |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
| Reviewed revision | 04 (document currently at 07) | |
| Result | Ready w/nits | |
| Completed | 2014-06-22 |
review-ietf-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation-04-genart-lc-carpenter-2014-06-22-00
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-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation-04.txt Reviewer: Brian Carpenter Review Date: 2014-06-22 IETF LC End Date: 2014-07-02 IESG Telechat date: Summary: Ready with nits -------- Nits: ----- > IP-within-IP encapsulation [RFC2473] That RFC is specific to IP-in-IPv6. Do you also need to cite something for IPv6-in-IPv4 encapsulation? (It isn't clear to me whether the tunnel shown in Fig. 1 is always -in-IPv6. If it is, OK.) > LMA User Plane Address > > Contains the 32-bit IPv4 address, or the 128-bit IPv6 of the LMA s/IPv6/IPv6 address/ > o When using IPv4 transport for the user-plane, the IP address field > in the option must be the IPv4 address carrying user-plane > traffic. > > o When using IPv6 transport for the user-plane, the IP address field > in the option must be the IPv6 address carrying user-plane > traffic. Should those two occurrences of must be MUST?