Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation-04

Request Review of draft-ietf-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 07)
Type 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 2014-06-22
Completed reviews Genart 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 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
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-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


>    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?