Hi,
As per my action from the IETF-Atlanta meeting, I have reviewed: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-ropt-02.txt and have the following comments: 1) Section 1, 4th paragraph * Can you give some more guidance (qualitative or quantitative) as to when the two enhancements covered in this I-D should be used over the baseline (RFC6224) solution? A (small) separate section to cover this question in the Overview (section 3) would be very helpful. 2) Section 3.2, Figure 2 * This figure should be re-drawn to match the conventions of Figure 1 (or vice versa). Since Figure 1 and Figure 2 are supposed to illustrate the two main options of the I-D, it is unfortunate that they are currently using different conventions (e.g. Fig. 2 shows MN movement, while Fig. 1 does not). 3) Section 6 * For completeness, I think you need a (short) new section similar to this one for the MR. 4) Section 9 * Needs to be updated to cover section 5.1.2 "Type" 5) Section 10 * But isn't there protocol modifications proposed, for example, in section 5.1.1? * Also, the MTMA is introduced as a new node not existing in previous PMIP architectures. So definitely some discussion is needed to show the security considerations of the MTMA. Perhaps the same is needed for the MR in the Direct Routing option? 6) General - Overall, the document is well written and in good shape, and I support in progressing it further once the updates above are made. /Akbar
_______________________________________________ multimob mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multimob
