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
----------------------------------------------------