Subject: [DMM] Mirja Kühlewind's No Record on draft-ietf-dmm-lma-controlled-mag-params-04: (with COMMENT)

From: Mirja Kühlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 06:45:24 -0700

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dmm-lma-controlled-mag-params-04: No Record

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmm-lma-controlled-mag-params/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Minor comments:

1) Please add a reference to rfc5213 right at the beginning of the
intro:
s/A large Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) deployment/A large Proxy Mobile IPv6
(PMIPv6) [RFC5213] deployment/

2) Section 3.1 says: "The alignment of the sub-option MUST be 4n."
Is that actually (still) important? Is this also the reason for the
reserved field in the option or is there an expectation that any flags
will be needed in future? Could you remove the reserved field and require
6n then (given you anyway at least need the LCMP Type and Length fields)?
No strong need to change anything, just asking...

3) Given that section 4 only has one subsection, I guess the subsection
heading for 4.1 can simply be removed.

4)  Are sections 4 and 5 updates to RFC5213? I find the use of normative
language at the beginning of each section a little weird, e.g.:
"The LMA MUST allow the following variables to be configured by the
system management." 
Isn't it implicit that these things have to be configurable to implement
this option? I would just not use normative language here...

5) Also section 4: I would recommend to use normative language rather to
define the used values itself than what they should be configured to,
e.g.
OLD
"It SHOULD NOT be set to less than 30 seconds or more than 3600
seconds."
NEW
"The delay time SHOULD NOT be less than 30 seconds or more than 3600
seconds."
Maybe even use a MUST here?

6) Security consideration: Aren't there security implications if an
external node can influence the number of message and therefore the
network load?