Subject: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr-08.txt

From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 23:21:38 -0800

Hello,

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft.
The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related
drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review. The purpose
of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more
information about the Routing Directorate, please see
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/routing.html

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it
would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF
Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through
discussion or by updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-netext-pmip-lr-08
Reviewer: Les Ginsberg
Review Date: 26 February 2012
IETF LC End Date: ???
Intended Status: Standards Track

Summary:
I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be
resolved before publication.

Comments:
This document is clearly written and easy to understand.
This is the first PMIP document I have reviewed, so I went back and read
some of the previous RFCs. Despite that it may mean that some of my
comments/questions are naive. Please indulge me.

Major Issues:
No major issues found.

Minor Issues:

Why are you not using the "MN-CN" terminology from RFC 6279? The fact
that you use "MN-MN" makes me think that you are only addressing cases
where both endpoints are MNs. Is this the case? If so, this should be
explicitly stated. If not, it would seem to be better to use the RFC
6279 terminology.

Section 5

I assume the lack of requirement for synchronization works because the
LMA will always forward packets regardless of whether it has sent an
LRI/received an LRA? This implies that MNs and MAGs may receive
duplicate packets at times - which presumably should be no problem. I am
wondering if it would be useful to discuss these points?

Similarly, in Section 6.1 it is assumed that LMAs always forward
inter-MN packets regardless of the state of LR?

Nits:
A number of acronyms are used without definition. For example, in
Section 4 page 7 "HNP" "BUL" "BCE" are all undefined. This does not
represent a complete list. Can you please scrub the document for all
such occurences?