Separation of Control and User Plane for Proxy Mobile IPv6
draft-ietf-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation-07
Yes
(Brian Haberman)
No Objection
(Alissa Cooper)
(Barry Leiba)
(Jari Arkko)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Kathleen Moriarty)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Richard Barnes)
(Spencer Dawkins)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -05)
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-08-04 for -05)
Unknown
I don't object to this document, but I found... > No known implementations of the protocol exist at this time. No > vendors have expressly stated a plan to implement this > specification either. ...a little odd for a Standard Track document, especially since there was apparently such clear consensus that this is a problem that needs to be solved. I guess I am old-fashioned enough to hope for running code from time to time.
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-08-06 for -05)
Unknown
A few weirdnesses in section 4:
There can be multiple
instances of the LMA User Plane Address mobility option present in
the message, one for IPv4 and the other for IPv6 transport.
Do you really mean "there can be multiple instances", or do you rather mean "there can be either one or two instances: One for IPv4, one for IPv6, or one for each of them"?
...the IP address field
in the option can be either a zero-length field, or...
Two instances of the above. Should that "can" be a MUST?
...the IP address field in the option MUST be set...
In the above and the two bullet items below it: Shouldn't the "MUST be" in each one instead be "is"? There's no protocol requirement there. What else *could* an implementation do?
Richard Barnes Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-09-02)
Unknown
Thanks for addressing my discuss points.