Many thanks for your review, Alexey! And thank you Carlos for updating the draft. I have balloted a No-Objection position, mostly based on the Gen-ART review. I'd normally do a little bit of review myself as well, but I'm on vacation, so I have been unable to review more than a couple of documents this time.
When will the -08 be published. Jari On Jul 17, 2013, at 4:42 AM, Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Alexey, > > Thanks a lot for the review. Please see below some comments inline. > > On Tue, 2013-07-16 at 11:17 +0100, Alexey Melnikov wrote: >> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on >> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at >> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. >> >> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments >> you may receive. >> >> >> >> Document: draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-ropt-07.txt >> >> Reviewer: Alexey Melnikov >> >> Review Date: 16 July 2013 >> >> IETF LC End Date: 3 July 2013 >> >> IESG Telechat date: 18 July 2013 >> >> >> >> Summary: Ready for publication as an Experimental RFC with some nits >> >> >> Major issues: None >> >> >> >> Minor issues: >> >> >> >> >> In 5.1.2: >> >> Dynamic IP Multicast Selector Mode Flag: >> >> This field indicates the subscription via MTMA/direct routing >> mode. If the (M) flag value is set to a value of (1), it is an >> indication that the IP multicast traffic associated to the >> multicast group(s) identified by the Multicast Address Record(s) >> in this mobility option SHOULD be routed locally (subscription >> via >> direct routing mode). If the (M) flag value is set to a value >> of >> (0), it is an indication that IP multicast traffic associated to >> the multicast group(s) identified by the Multicast Address >> Record >> in this mobility option(s) SHOULD be routed to the home network, >> via the MTMA (subscription via MTMA mode). All other IP traffic >> associated with the mobile node SHOULD be managed according to a >> default policy configured at the PMIPv6 multicast domain. >> >> The last sentence: I don't think you should use RFC 2119 SHOULD here. >> I think you are saying that this document doesn't affect all other IP >> traffic. So just use "is managed" instead of "SHOULD be managed". >> > OK, updated in version -08 (to be submitted once we get all the > comments). > >> >> Is IANA Considerations section clear to IANA? I suggest you add at >> least the URI for the IANA registry. >> Is IANA registration policy compatible with the type of document >> (Experimental)? I can't check that, as I don't know which registry you >> are talking about. >> > The IANA has not complained about it, but we will update the text in -08 > so it reads like this: > > 9. IANA Considerations > > This document defines a new mobility option, the Dynamic IP Multicast > Selector, which has been assigned the Type TBD by IANA. The Type > value for these options has been assigned from the same numbering > space as allocated for the other mobility options, as defined in > [RFC6275]: http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters/ > mobility-parameters.xhtml. >> >> >> >> Nits/editorial comments: >> >> >> >> In 3.3: acronyms PBU and PBA need to be expanded on first use. They >> are expanded further down in the document. > > Fixed in -08, thanks. > > Thanks again for the review, > > Carlos >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
