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-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation-04.txt Reviewer: Brian Carpenter Review Date: 2014-06-22 IETF LC End Date: 2014-07-02 IESG Telechat date: Summary: Ready with nits -------- Nits: ----- > IP-within-IP encapsulation [RFC2473] That RFC is specific to IP-in-IPv6. Do you also need to cite something for IPv6-in-IPv4 encapsulation? (It isn't clear to me whether the tunnel shown in Fig. 1 is always -in-IPv6. If it is, OK.) > LMA User Plane Address > > Contains the 32-bit IPv4 address, or the 128-bit IPv6 of the LMA s/IPv6/IPv6 address/ > o When using IPv4 transport for the user-plane, the IP address field > in the option must be the IPv4 address carrying user-plane > traffic. > > o When using IPv6 transport for the user-plane, the IP address field > in the option must be the IPv6 address carrying user-plane > traffic. Should those two occurrences of must be MUST?