Hello, I've reviewed this document as part of the transport area directorate's ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's authors for their information and to allow them to address any issues raised. The authors should consider this review together with any other last-call comments they receive. Please always CC tsv-...@ietf.org if you reply to or forward this review.
Summary: This draft describes the problem space for localized routing in PMIPv6, which supports direct communication between MAGs for MN and CN. This draft is basically ready for publication and I couldn't find any transport related issues in the draft. Minor comments: Would it be better to mention error detection and fallback function in Functional Requirements? It would be useful and helpful to fall back to normal routing when something happens. I believe localize routing is very useful in most cases. However, I think there will be the cases where we had better avoid localized routing, such as a case where there are some restrictions (policy, network quality or configuration, etc) in communications between MAGs. It might be better to address having some kind of control to enable localized routing in Functional Requirements in addition to checking source and destination addresses. Thanks, -- Yoshifumi Nishida nish...@sfc.wide.ad.jp _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
