Multicast Listener Extensions for Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6) and Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) Fast Handovers
RFC 7411

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.

(Jari Arkko) Yes

Comment (2014-10-15 for -09)
No email
send info
Thank you for writing a very readable document on a difficult subject. Glad to see the document move forward!

However, the status code fields in Sections 5.3 and 5.4 would in my opinion require some text in the IANA considerations section, to create a new namespace for the values, and indicate the rules for making new allocations in those spaces.

(Brian Haberman) Yes

(Alia Atlas) No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) No Objection

Barry Leiba No Objection

Comment (2014-10-01 for -09)
No email
send info
An easy read; thanks.

I have only a couple of very minor comments, both about some 2119 key words:

-- Section 4.1.2 --

   A PAR MUST advertise its support for multicast by setting the M-bit
   in the Proxy Router Advertisement (PrRtAdv) message, as specified in
   Section 5.1 of this document.

The "MUST" seems out of place here.  It seems that a PAR that doesn't support multicast doesn't do this, so that PAR violates this "MUST".  A PAR that does support multicast does this, as part of its having multicast support.  So this should probably say, "A PAR that supports multicast advertises that support by setting ..."

Similar comment about the NAR in Section 4.1.3.

-- Section 4.2.2 --

   After the departure of the MN and on the reception of a LEAVE
   message, it is RECOMMENDED that the PMAG terminates forwarding of the
   specified groups and updates its multicast forwarding database.

What are the consequences of not terminating the forwarding?  Why might a PMAG continue the forwarding, despite the "SHOULD" here, and what will happen if it does?

(Kathleen Moriarty) No Objection

Comment (2014-10-15 for -09)
No email
send info
Thanks for doing this work, it's good to see progress for improved communications in disaster scenarios.

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection