Hi Elwyn, Thanks for the detailed review. Appreciate it. The latest draft that we published (-11) should address your comments. Please see inline. Regards Sri > -----Original Message----- > From: Elwyn Davies [mailto:elwynd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 3:11 PM > To: General Area Review Team > Cc: Mary Barnes; sgundave@xxxxxxxxx; kleung@xxxxxxxxx; > vijay.devarapalli@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; > kchowdhury@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; basavaraj.patil@xxxxxxx; > netlmm-ads@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; netlmm-chairs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; IETF > Discussion > Subject: Gen-art review of draft-ietf-netlmm-proxymip6-10.txt > > > 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 resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments > you may receive. > > Document: draft-ietf-netlmm-proxymip6-10.txt > Reviewer: Elwyn Davies > Review Date: 18 Feb 2008 > IETF LC End Date: 20 Feb 2008 > IESG Telechat date: 21 Feb 2008 > > Summary: > This document is well written and is in fairly good shape for > submission > to the IESG. > There are a number of minor issues which ought to be fixed. I think > that for a more general reader there are a number of points that are > fully covered in the detail but when reading the introduction and > protocol overview questions arise which aren't answered until > later in > the document, and I was left thinking whether the problem had been > addressed until much later. I have noted these items in the > comments. > I believe it would only take a few sentences to lay these > issues to rest > and make the document easier to understand for those who are not > immersed in netlmm. > > Comments: > > s3, paras just after fig 2: The para after fig 2 claims that the LMA > sets up the bidir tunnel; then the next para claims that the MAG > 'establishes' the (same) tunnel. Be clear which one has > responsibility. > There are two parts to it. Each end point setting up its own part of the tunnel. Clarified the language. > s3, p12: > > > > The local mobility anchor, being the topological anchor > point for the > > mobile node's home network prefix, receives any packets that are > > sent by any correspondent node to the mobile node. > > > I think it should be made clear (assuming I understand > correctly what is > going on) that this 'correspondent' node does not require any of the > MIPv6 correspondent functionality and will not see any > specialized MIPv6 > messages. It is difficult to think of an alternative term, but this > could be confusing. > Replaced the word "correspondent" with "node", still implying the LMA as the topological anchor point. > s5.3.4, item 2: Whether the tunnel is deleted is surely an > implementation issue. The LMA and MAG could agree to maintain the > tunnel even if there are no MNs active on the MAG to save on setup > costs. I think this could be a MAY, leaving it up to implementers to > optimize if desired. (This is actually discussed later in s5.6.1.. a > forward pointer is needed here) > Yes. Clarified this to suggest, its only for dynamically created tunnels. > s6.1, bullet 2: Does this make any assumptions about > commonality of IID > between addresses used by the interface? > Its just talking about the L2 idenfier. > s6.5: I thought it was said earlier that checking that the MN is > entitled to mobility services was a MUST. Does the SHOULD > refer to the > means of authenticating? > yes. > s8.2: The (M) flag is not added to the Binding Ack message by > RFC 4140 > (only to the Binding Update msg). > Fixed. Thanks > s10: The new registry for the Handoff Indicator values is not > specified > in the IANA Considerations. > Thanks. Good catch. Fixed > Areas where some earlier explanation would make life easier for the > general reader: > > 3: I think it would be useful to explain how the LMA knows > that the MN > that has moved from p-MAG to n-MAG is the same MN.. and hence > gets the > same prefix somewhere here (the MN_identity, auth and policy I think). > Rephrased it to imply the LMA identifies the BCE associated with the request. > s5.1, last para: (it turns out that s5.2 and s6.3 give most of the > answers but I was left worrying) States that the mobile > node's address > prefix would normally be the key for the binding cache entry. This > implies that it will be a unique key and hence every MN requires a > different address prefix. I think this is sort of implied > earlier, but > I think it could be stressed at the outset. This raises a couple of > more significant issues in my mind: > - A MAG using stateless address config will be advertising one prefix > per attached MN: if there are lots of them the RA's will be very > large. Is this an issue? (not if everything is a pt2pt link, but > - How does the MN know which prefix to use if it isn't a pt2pt link? > [s5.2 does not address these issues although it clarifies that the > prefix per MN mode is used] s6.3 states that it is assumed > that links > will be pt2pt and hence only one prefix on link. This should be made > clear earlier, probably in the protocol overview. > > I think some additional notes on the Shared_prefix model case > and what > happens if the links are *not* pt2pt would be helpful: There is a > significant risk of the RAs getting very large if multiple > prefixes need > to be advertised - and it requires slightly different policy to make > sure a MN can pick the right prefix if there is more than one prefix > advertised. > The draft clearly supports p2p link model and does not support shared prefix model. I'd think, we should not discuss about the issues related to shared link in this draft. So, for the above comments, no change. > s6.4: I think that explaining where the DHCPv6 server would > be and how > it would know what prefix to take the address out of would be > useful. > (A few words plus a pointer to s6.11 would do.) > slight rewording > Editorial: > > (idnits is happy with the document) > > s2.2, MN-Identifier: Expand NAI and MAC acronyms. > Sure. > s4.1: Associate PAD with Peer Authorization Database. > Yes > Fig 5: Provide key to various acronyms. > > s5.1, bullet 1: 'enabled'/'turned off': This reads as if > the flag is > sometimes present and sometimes not present. Suggest using > 'set'/'reset' or 'true'/'false'. > Thanks. Fixed > s5.1, bullet 3: Define ALL_ZERO. > Added the definition in the terminology section > s5.2: The terms Per-MN-Prefix and Shared-Prefix model are not > defined in > this doc. Are they imported from some other netlmm doc? > Added the definition in the terminology section > s5.3: Would be useful to put in a pointer to the message format > descriptions here. > Fixed > s5.4.1.1: use of == and != ... use of words is better than C > programming > language . > :) Sure Thanks for the detailed review. Appreciate it. Regards Sri > > > > _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf