Hi Spencer,
Thanks for the review. See my responses inline.
On Aug 4, 2009, at 10:45 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
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-dime-pmip6-02.txt
Reviewer: Spencer Dawkins
IETF LC End Date: 2009-08-05
Review Date: 2009-08-03
IESG Telechat date: (not known)
Summary: This specification is almost ready for publication as a
Proposed Standard. I have some minor comments, mostly involving 2119
language.
1. Introduction
This specification defines the Diameter support for PMIPv6. In the
context of this specification the location of the subscriber policy
profile equals to the home Diameter server, which is also referred as
Spencer (clarity): this sentence is difficult to parse - is it
saying "In this specification, the home Diameter server, which is
also referred to as the home AAA server (HAAA), contains the
subscriber policy profile"? If it doesn't, I'm too confused to make
a suggestion...
How about:
In the context of this specification the home AAA server (HAAA)
functionality is co-located with the subscriber policy profile.
the home AAA server (HAAA). The NAS functionality of the MAG may be
co-located or an integral part of the MAG.
4.5. MIP6-Feature-Vector AVP
LOCAL_MAG_ROUTING_SUPPORTED (0x0000040000000000)
Direct routing of IP packets between MNs anchored to the same MAG
is supported. When a MAG sets this bit in the MIP6-Feature-
Vector, it indicates that routing IP packets between MNs anchored
to the same MAG is supported, without reverse tunneling packets
via the LMA or requiring any Route Optimization related signaling
(e.g. the Return Routability Procedure in [RFC3775]) prior direct
routing. If this bit is unset in the returned MIP6-Feature-Vector
Spencer (clarity): I'd say "if this bit is cleared".
OK.
AVP, the HAAA does not authorize direct routing of packets between
MNs anchored to the same MAG. This policy feature SHOULD be
supported per MN and subscription basis.
Spencer (minor): it's not clear who SHOULD be supporting this
feature - who does the 2119 SHOULD apply to? I would guess it
applies to the MAG, but I'm guessing. Is this "supported on a per-MN
and per-subscription basis"? And I'm not sure why this SHOULD isn't
a MUST.
"supported on a per-MN and per-subscription basis" is what the text
tries to say.
It is SHOULD as the RFC5213 does not mandate whether the local routing
is per-MN (uses MAY in RFC5213) or applies to whole MAG. Therefore, we
felt SHOULD is enough and final decision is then left for the
deployment/system.
4.8. Service-Selection AVP
It is also possible that the MAG receives the service selection
information from the MN, for example, via some lower layer mechanism.
In this case the MAG SHOULD include the Service-Selection AVP also in
Spencer (minor): why is this a SHOULD, and not a MUST?
I would be fine with MUST here.
the MAG-to-HAAA request messages. In absence of the Service-
Selection AVP in the MAG-to-HAAA request messages, the HAAA may want
to inform the MAG of the default service provisioned to the MN and
include the Service-Selection AVP in the response message.
5.1. MAG-to-HAAA Interface
Whenever the MAG sends a Diameter request message to the HAAA the
User-Name AVP SHOULD contain the MN's identity. The MN identity, if
Spencer (minor): what is this SHOULD conditional on?
In case of identity hiding is applied, the User-Name can be absent.
available, MUST be in Network Access Identifier (NAI) [RFC4282]
format. At minimum the home realm of the MN MUST be available at the
MAG when the network access authentication takes place. Otherwise
the MAG is not able to route the Diameter request messages towards
the correct HAAA. The MN identity used on the MAG-to-HAAA interface
and in the User-Name AVP MAY entirely be related to the network
access authentication, and therefore not suitable to be used as the
MN-ID mobility option value in the subsequent PBU/PBA messages. See
the related discussion on MN's identities in Section 4.6 and in
Section 5.2.1
Spencer (nit): missing period here.
OK.
5.2.1. Authorization of the Proxy Binding Update
Whenever the LMA sends a Diameter request message to the HAAA, the
User-Name AVP SHOULD contain the MN's identity. The LMA MAY retrieve
Spencer (minor): what is this SHOULD conditional on?
The "profile" for LMA-HAAA proposed in this specification is going to
be used on top of some other application. That some other application
may not use User-Name, thus we felt SHOULD is strong enough to give
guidance to do so..
the MN's identity information from the PBU MN-ID [RFC4283][RFC5213]
mobility option. The identity SHOULD be the same as used on the MAG-
to-HAAA interface, but in the case those identities differ the HAAA
MUST have a mechanism of mapping the MN identity used on the MAG-to-
HAAA interface to the identity used on the LMA-to-HAAA interface.
6.1. Session-Termination-Request
The LMA or the MAG MAY send the Session-Termination-Request (STR)
command [RFC3588] to the HAAA and inform the termination of an
Spencer (clarity): I got lost in this sentence. Suggest "to inform
the HAAA that the termination of...".
The proposed change looks good to me.
Cheers,
Jouni
ongoing PMIPv6 session is in progress.
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf