Goals for Network-Based Localized Mobility Management (NETLMM)
RFC 4831

  My main concern with this document is that many of the goals are pretty
  vague and cannot be objectively verified. As such, I don't see what
  purpose this document really has. Many of the goals are generic
  and can apply to pretty much any protocol and there is significant overlap
  between different goals.

  The gap analysis in Section 8 would be useful. However, in its
  current form, it doesn't present either the different existing
  proposals or the arguments for why they evaluate in a certain
  way for the different goals in sufficient detail to understand
  the conclusion.


Section 2.1, paragraph 2:
>      A goal of the protocol is to reduce the loss of accurate forwarding
>      to reduce interruptions which may cause user-perceptible service
>      degradation for real time traffic such as voice.

  The previous paragraph states a stricter goal ("IP handover time
  should be between 40-70 ms") than this. "Reduce loss of accurate
  forwarding" is pretty vague.


Section 2.2, paragraph 4:
>      The goal is that handover signaling volume from the mobile node to
>      the network should be no more than what is needed for the mobile
>      node to perform secure IP level movement detection, in cases where
>      no link layer support exists.

  "No more than what is needed" is not an objective criteria.


Section 2.5, paragraph 1:
>      Therefore, any solutions for localized
>      mobility management should minimize signaling within the wired
>      network as well.

  There is overlap among goals 2 ("Reduction in Handover-related
  Signaling Volume"), 4 ("Efficient Use of Wireless Resources") and 5
  ("Limit the Signaling Overhead in the Network"). Because pretty much
  all signaling will be handover-related, goal 2 already subsumes goal 5
  and especially goal 4. Additionally, some of these goals ("minimize
  signaling", etc.) aren't verifiable


Section 2.7, paragraph 3:
>      The goal is that the localized mobility management protocol should
>      not use any wireless link specific information for basic routing
>      management, though it may be used for other purposes, such as
>      identifying a mobile node.

  Why is this goal specific to wireless links? I'd recommend to erase
  the word "wireless" in Section 2.7 (and possibly the entire document).


Section 2.10, paragraph 0:
>   2.10 Re-use of Existing Protocols Where Sensible (Goal #10)

  How is this specific to NETLMM? How is this objectively verifiable?
  Candidate for removal.


Section 7.0, paragraph 0:
>   7.0    Informative References

  No normative references?


Section 8.0, paragraph 0:
>   8.0   Appendix: Gap Analysis

  This appendix should probably be expanded and become a standalone
  document. In its current form, it doesn't present either the different
  existing proposals or the arguments for why they evaluate in a a
  certain way for the different goals in sufficient detail to understand
  the conclusion.

I guess I'm less picky about 'goals' documents that some other ADs. My view is that this is a useful document as long as nobody tries to interpret it rigidly as 'requirements.'

Two editorial matters from Gen-ART review by John Loughney:

1) Contributor section at the beginning seems odd, and the second
sentence seems a bit gratitous.  I'd suggest moving it to the 
acknowledgement section and dropping the last sentence.
      
     Gerardo Giaretta, Kent Leung, Katsutoshi Nishida, Phil Roberts, and
     Marco Liebsch all contributed major effort to this document. Their 
     names are not included in the authors' section due to the RFC 
     Editor's limit of 5 names. 

2) The 1 sentence abstract is a bit weak, ... it could state a bit
more.

In the write-up, Vidya's name is not spelled correctly. Narayanan is correct.