This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team'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 and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF
discussion list for information.

When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this
review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC
tsv-art@ietf.org if you reply to or forward this review.

Summary: This document is almost ready for publication as an informational RFC, but it will be better to clarify the following points.

1: The examples shown in the draft look behave conveniently.
   For examples, in the figure 3 case, the flow is somehow terminated before the MN moves and 
   is re-initiated after the movement has finished.
   However, I believe there should be the cases where applications don't aware of network changes
   and transmit data while migrating, which may cause packet drops, delays and timeouts, etc.
   I think this draft should clarify the treatments of these cases. Is it out of scope of the draft?
   Or, do some components generate ICMP messages to give some hints to the applications, or
   provide buffering features to mitigate the side effects? 

2: Page 8:
   "A MN will need to choose which IP prefix/address to use for each flow
    according to whether it needs IP mobility support or not."

     -> It seems to me that the draft implicitly suggests the use of draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility here.
        If so, I think it would be better to state more explicitly. Or, do we have other options?
        
3: Page 10:
    "the initial anchor remains the anchor and forwards traffic"

     -> could be "anchor remains and the anchor.."?


Thanks,
--
Yoshi