Hi Russ, Thank you for your comments and questions. Please see the responses to each issue. I copied the comments and followed each one with a response for ease of review. Minor Concerns: Section 2: Please update the first paragraph to reference RFC 8174 in addition to RFC 2119, as follows: The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. >>Response: Yes, I will apply the newer text and add a reference to RFC8174. Nits: Section 1: s/It should be noted that in/In/ >>Response: I will apply the change. Section 1 uses one style for listing two properties, and then Section 3 uses another style for listing four types of IP address. Please pick one style and use it in both places. >>Response: I am changing the listing style in section 1 to the one used in section 3. Section 4.1: s/secsc(/setsc(/ -- in a comment >>Response: I will correct the typo in the comment Questions: Should getsc() also be described in Section 6? >>Response: Actually, ‘getsc()’ is a typo. The draft proposes only one new API: ‘setsc()’. I will correct all occurrences of ‘getsc()’ to ‘setsc()’. Should anything be added to the Security Considerations about CGA? >>Response: I do not think so. This draft does not deal with how source IP addresses are generated. Specifically, it does not change the way a source IPv6 addresses are constructed from a given source IPv6 prefix. It only specifies a way for applications to express their desire regarding the type of service provided by networks for mobility management. Thanks and regards, Danny -----Original Message----- From: Russ Housley [mailto:housley@xxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Friday, January 04, 2019 00:58 To: gen-art@xxxxxxxx Cc: draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility.all@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx; dmm@xxxxxxxx Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-15 Reviewer: Russ Housley Review result: Almost Ready I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-15 Reviewer: Russ Housley Review Date: 2019-01-03 IETF LC End Date: 2019-01-16 IESG Telechat date: unknown Summary: Almost Ready Major Concerns: None. Minor Concerns: Section 2: Please update the first paragraph to reference RFC 8174 in addition to RFC 2119, as follows: The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. Nits: Section 1: s/It should be noted that in/In/ Section 1 uses one style for listing two properties, and then Section 3 uses another style for listing four types of IP address. Please pick one style and use it in both places. Section 4.1: s/secsc(/setsc(/ -- in a comment Questions: Should getsc() also be described in Section 6? Should anything be added to the Security Considerations about CGA? --------------------------------------------------------------------- A member of the Intel Corporation group of companies This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
