Last Call Review of draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source-07
review-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source-07-genart-lc-black-2014-02-17-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source |
|---|---|---|
| Requested rev. | no specific revision (document currently at 09) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
| Deadline | 2014-02-24 | |
| Requested | 2014-02-13 | |
| Authors | Thomas Schmidt, Shuai Gao, Hong-Ke Zhang, Matthias Wählisch | |
| Draft last updated | 2014-02-17 | |
| Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -07 by David Black
(diff)
Genart Telechat review of -08 by David Black (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -07 by Radia Perlman (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | David Black |
| State | Completed | |
| Review | review-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source-07-genart-lc-black-2014-02-17 | |
| Reviewed rev. | 07 (document currently at 09) | |
| Review result | Ready with Nits | |
| Review completed: | 2014-02-17 |
Review
review-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source-07-genart-lc-black-2014-02-17
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at < http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source-07 Reviewer: David L. Black Review Date: Feb 16, 2014 IETF LC End Date: Feb 24, 2014 Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be fixed before publication. This draft describes multicast support for proxy mobile IPv6. It assumes significant understanding of multicast and specifically the PIM-SM protocol. Nits/editorial comments: -- Introduction, 3rd paragraph Remove the word business from the following text, please: Such approaches (partially) follow the business model of providing multicast data services in parallel to PMIPv6 unicast routing [I-D.ietf-multimob-handover-optimization]. -- 4.3.1 The fact that PIM-SM has three phases could be made somewhat clearer here. Suggestion: OLD The granularity of mobility-related routing locators required in PIM depends on the complexity (phases) of its deployment. The following information is needed for all three phases of PIM as defined in [RFC4601]. NEW The granularity of mobility-related routing locators required in PIM depends on the complexity (specific phase) of its deployment. For all three phases of PIM deployment (see [RFC4601]), the following information is needed. Also, is "deployment" the right word to describe the phases? It implies that not all of the phases need to be present in an implementation or used, even if applicable. -- 4.3.2 - 4.3.4 I would also suggest including the names of the phases from RFC 4601 in these section titles, e.g.: 4.3.2. Operations of PIM in Phase One (RP Tree) -- idnits idnits 2.13.01 found an unused reference and a couple of drafts that have been updated: == Unused Reference: 'RFC2236' is defined on line 1047, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: A later version (-02) exists of draft-ietf-multimob-fmipv6-pfmipv6-multicast-01 == Outdated reference: A later version (-07) exists of draft-ietf-multimob-handover-optimization-06 Thanks, --David ---------------------------------------------------- David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748 +1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786 david.black at emc.com Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754 ----------------------------------------------------