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.

First of all I do become a bit uncertain about the intentions of this document. As an informational document I think discussing an possible optimization and how it can be solved is all okay. What I fail to see the point and a likely a source of confusion is the draft socket API changes which may be considered as solutions. However, an detailed solution to the problem space requires one to actually dig into some of the areas the document explicitly calls outside of its intentions. Thus, I wished the document was a bit clearer on its purpose of only sketching an idea and be firmer of not actually offering a ready solution that can be implemented. Thus, I think there are risks with having something that appears to define a socket API extension. If the intention is to actually define socket API extensions then I think there are much more that needs to be defined and solved. 

Secondly, I think the proponents of this work should have a long and serious discussion if the ongoing work in the TAPS WG can actually provide an better way forward for the API as well as provide an improvement to the TAPS architecture. Because if an application specifies its needs for session continuity then an TAPS implementation could fulfill this either using a combination of TCP with Session lasting IP address or with Non-persistent IP address and transport protocols that has built in session mobility or continuity features such as MPTCP or QUIC.