Dear Carlos, Thanks a lot for your review. Please see inline below.
On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 4:05 AM Carlos Pignataro via Datatracker < [email protected]> wrote: > Reviewer: Carlos Pignataro > Review result: Ready with Nits > > I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for this Internet-Draft. These > comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area > Directors. > Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat these comments just like they > would treat comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve them > along > with any other Last Call comments that have been received. For more > details on > the INT Directorate, see http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate.html. > > I hope these comments are clear and useful. > > As requested, from the Internet area Directorate review, these two DMM > documents are being reviewed together: > * draft-ietf-dmm-distributed-mobility-anchoring-14 > * draft-ietf-dmm-pmipv6-dlif-05 > > This document defines distributed mobility anchoring, in terms of the > different configurations and functions to provide IP mobility support, > including network-based or host-based mobility support. > > The intended status is Informational. It is a very well written and > comprehensive document. It is technically sound. > > No major or minor issues. > > Nits: > > A set of small nits for your consideration. > > 1. Introduction > > As a Mobile Node (MN) attaches to an access router and establishes a > link between them, a /64 IPv6 prefix anchored to the router may be > assigned to the link for exclusive use by the MN [RFC6459]. The MN > may then configure a global IPv6 address from this prefix and use it > as the source IP address in a flow to communicate with its > correspondent node (CN). > > Capitalize: > s/correspondent node/Correspondent Node/ > [CB] OK, fixed in -15 (to be submitted). > > 2. Conventions and Terminology > > These include terms such as mobile node (MN), correspondent node > (CN), home agent (HA), home address (HoA), care-of-address (CoA), > local mobility anchor (LMA), and mobile access gateway (MAG). > > Capitalize “Mobile Node” (as per § 1), “Corespondent Node”, etc. > [CB] OK, fixed in -15 (to be submitted). > Similar within this same § 2, “mobile router”, etc. > Same throughout the document (e.g., “router advertisement (RA)”) > [CB] OK, fixed in -15 (to be submitted). > > 4.3. Mobility case, anchor relocation > > The IP prefix/address anchoring may move without changing the IP > prefix/address of the flow. Here the LM and FM functions in Figure 1 > in Section 3.1 are implemented as shown in Figure 7. > > “Figure 1 in Section 3.1.1 are implemented” > [CB] OK, fixed in -15 (to be submitted). > > Figure 7: Anchor mobility > > Should this figure’s label be “Anchor Relocation” instead of ‘Anchor > mobility”? > [CB] OK, makes sense. Fixed in -15 (to be submitted). > 5. Security Considerations > > As stated in [RFC7333], "a DMM solution MUST supportany security > > s/supportany/support any/ > [CB] OK, fixed in -15 (to be submitted). > > 8.2. Informative References > > The relationship of this document and draft-ietf-dmm-deployment-models is > mostly clear, thank you for that. > [CB] Related to this, we got a comment from Mirja. Since draft-ietf-dmm-deployment-models is not going to progress any further, we'll try to remove the reference and incorporate the needed content to make our document self contained without the reference. > > I hope you fid these comments useful. > [CB] Very much indeed. Thanks a lot! Carlos > > Carlos Pignataro. > > > >
_______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
