Subject: [multimob] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source-08: (with COMMENT)

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 09:27:23 -0700

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source-08: No Objection

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 http://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:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-multimob-pmipv6-source/

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

I have a couple of questions about text clarity. Please consider them,
along with any other comments you receive from other reviewers. 

And I should say that MIP/PMIP drafts I've often read have been dense for
me, and this one is clearer than most - thank you for that.

4.3.2.  Operations of PIM in Phase One (RP Tree)

   Source handover management in PIM phase one admits low complexity and
   remains transparent to receivers.  In addition, the source register
   tunnel management of PIM is a fast protocol operation and little
   overhead is induced thereof.  
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I didn't understand this text clearly. Is it saying something like
"little overhead is introduced"?

7.  Security Considerations

   In addition to proper authorization checks
   of MNs, rate controls at routing agents and replicators MAY be
   required to protect the agents and the downstream networks.  In
   ^^^^^^^^

is this "may be needed"? The passive voice doesn't make the text easy to
parse (and I'm thinking this MAY is not a 2119 MAY, but that's a separate
issue).

   particular, MLD proxy implementations at MAGs SHOULD carefully
   procure for automatic multicast state extinction on the departure of
   ^^^^^^^

This word doesn't fit (a quick google of online directionaries pointed
toward "procure" as obtaining something by special effort, for example).
I wondered if you meant "probe", but I'm guessing.

   MNs, as mobile multicast listeners in the PMIPv6 domain will in
   general not actively terminate group membership prior to departure.

   Consequently,
   implementations of peering-enabled proxies SHOULD take particular
   care on maintaining (varying) IP configurations at the downstream in
                       ^^^^^^^^^
I don't understand what "varying" means in this context (my first guess
was that it was being used as a synonym for "maintaining", which didn't
work). Is it needed at all?

   a reliable and timely manner (see [RFC6224] for requirements on
   PMIPv6-compliant implementations of MLD proxies).

---

From: "Thomas C. Schmidt" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 19:56:08 +0200

Hi Spencer,

thanks for the review and comments on presentation issues. Please see 
inline.

:-)

>     overhead is induced thereof.

Yes, we reworded: "... PIM is a fast protocol operation that introduces 
little overhead."

> parse (and I'm thinking this MAY is not a 2119 MAY, but that's a separate

Yes, you're right: "may be needed" is what we wanted to say ;)

> I wondered if you meant "probe", but I'm guessing.

"Probe" would refer to a special solution to achieve this clean-up of 
state. We would reword:

"MLD proxy implementations at MAGs SHOULD automatically extinct 
multicast state on the departure of"

> work). Is it needed at all?

The focus here is on the changing IP connectivity at a MAG's downstream. 
We reword:

"implementations of peering-enabled proxies SHOULD take particular care 
on keeping IP configurations consistent"

>     PMIPv6-compliant implementations of MLD proxies).

We will update the draft accordingly.

Best,

thomas

-- 

Prof. Dr. Thomas C. Schmidt
° Hamburg University of Applied Sciences                   Berliner Tor 7 °
° Dept. Informatik, Internet Technologies Group    20099 Hamburg, Germany °
° http://www.haw-hamburg.de/inet                   Fon: +49-40-42875-8452 °
° http://www.informatik.haw-hamburg.de/~schmidt    Fax: +49-40-42875-8409 °

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 14:27:09 -0500

Hi, Thomas,

These are all fine for me, and thank you.

You might want to make sure your AD is ready for a revision, of course.

Thanks,

Spencer

On Monday, March 31, 2014, Thomas C. Schmidt <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> "MLD proxy implementations at MAGs SHOULD automatically extinct multicast
> state on the departure of"
>
>
>      Consequently,
> "implementations of peering-enabled proxies SHOULD take particular care on
> keeping IP configurations consistent"
>