[DMM] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-dmm-tn-a ware-mobility-31: (with COMMENT)

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dmm-tn-aware-mobility-31: 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 https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmm-tn-aware-mobility/



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


# Éric Vyncke INT AD comments for draft-ietf-dmm-tn-aware-mobility-31
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points/nits (replies would be
appreciated even if only for my own education).

Special thanks to Satoru Matsushima for the shepherd's detailed write-up
including the WG consensus *and* the justification of the intended status.

Other thanks to Carlos Bernardos, the Internet directorate reviewer (at my
request), please consider this int-dir review:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-dmm-tn-aware-mobility-27-intdir-telechat-haddad-2026-07-06/
(and I have seen John's reply)

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

Note: this ballot comments follow the Markdown syntax of
https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/tree/main, i.e., they can be processed by
a tool to create github issues.

## COMMENTS (non-blocking)

### Acronyms

Be sure to expand all acronyms before using them, e.g., gNB, CU, UP, ...

### Use of SVG graphics

To make a much nicer HTML rendering, suggest using the aasvg tool to generate
SVG graphics. It is worth a try especially if the I-D uses the Kramdown file
format ;-)

### Section 3.1

Consider adding a normative reference for `VLAN tags`.

### Section 3.3

The whole text `The source UDP port number that is encoded is the outer IP ...
source port to carry slice information` is a little confusing about the use of
IPsec: is it transport or tunnel mode ? Moreover is IPsec doing UDP
encapsulation to traverse NAT ? A packet format would be beneficial.

Even the next paragraph is unclear whether IPsec itself is encapsulated in UDP
(else with ESP the UDP ports are hidden).

### Section 4

As "VPN" is an overloaded term, please add informative references to `VPN,
IP/MPLS and SR-TE`.

### Section 6

The ECMP considerations are valid but are not really about "security" and
should rather be in an "operational considerations" section.

****
[email protected]



_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]