I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. Document: draft-ietf-ipsecme-ad-vpn-problem-07.txt Reviewer: Suresh Krishnan Review Date: 2013/06/24 IESG Telechat date: 2013/06/27 Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as an Informational RFC but I do have a few comments that the authors may want to consider. Minor ===== * Section 2.3 The following sentence is a bit confusing. How does a mobile user connect to a new gateway without reinitiating a connection? Can you please clarify or reword. "The mobile user ought to be able to discover and then connect to the current most efficient gateway without having to reinitiate the connection." * Section 4.1. Requirement 5 Shouldn't there be a requirement here that states what kind of damage is allowed and prohibited in case a hub node is compromised? * Section 4.1. Requirement 12 It is unclear what this requirement means. Is the requirement for the solution to integrate with multicast routing protocols to come up with a different (and optimized) multicast ADVPN topology or to simply allow the advpn to carry (flattened out) multicast traffic? * Section 4.1. Requirement 14 Are there any special requirements that L3VPN poses on top of what is required for carrying generic IP traffic? If so, can you elaborate here. Thanks Suresh _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
