Subject: Re: [Int-dir] Intdir early review of draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-14

From: "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2018 21:28:45 +0000

Hi Brian,

Thanks for the review.

Authors: 

Can you please respond to these review comments and address all the
issues? Unless you address all the issues from these IESG initiated
reviews, this document is not going any where.

Sri

On 5/21/18, 7:24 AM, "Brian Haberman" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>Reviewer: Brian Haberman
>Review result: Not Ready
>
>This is an early review request for draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility.
>
>I am having a hard time with the thrust of this document. The following
>issues
>really need to be addressed in some form...
>
>1. Where is the concept of an IP session defined? Given that IP is
>connectionless, this term is really about IP address stability and its
>lifetime. A new term could/should be coined to reflect what is really
>needed.
>
>2. The needs described in this document have a mix of the ID/Location
>split
>issues raised in a variety of other specifications. It would be good to
>clarify
>what is different here.
>
>3. The draft only references host-based Mobile IP specifications. What
>are the
>implications when other solutions (e.g., PMIP) are employed?
>
>4. It is problematic that this document explicitly rules out of scope any
>discussion of how this API interacts with address assignment methods
>(e.g.,
>DHCP). Clearly, there will need to be a way for this API to influence
>each of
>the address assignment methods available. Some of the classes of IP
>addresses
>described in this document require certain lifetime guarantees from the
>address
>assignment method. That needs to addressed since it will  require changes
>to
>every assignment method.
>
>5. The IETF has a very checkered history of success in getting APIs
>standardized within the appropriate group (POSIX/Austin/Open). Has this
>proposed API been discussed within that community?