Home Agent-Assisted Route Optimization between Mobile IPv4 Networks
draft-ietf-mip4-nemo-haaro-07
Yes
(Jari Arkko)
No Objection
(Dan Romascanu)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Ralph Droms)
(Ron Bonica)
(Wesley Eddy)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-11-01)
Unknown
I support Ralph's Discuss although I see that the reasoning is clear from the charter. It should be simple to construct equivalent text to go in the document. --- I searched for a definition of "optimum" or "route optimizaton". I found This document proposes a method to optimize routes between networks behind Mobile Routers, as defined by NEMO [RFC5177]. But RFC 5177 says; This document does not touch on aspects related to route optimization of this traffic. Section 1 does include a number of statements that "route optimization addresses this issue" for several issues. That is great, but I still missed a succinct definition of "route optimization" and some understanding of how I would recognize "optimum" if I saw it. --- Section 3.2.2seems to have "should" and "may" that might benefit from moving to RFC 2119 usage.
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-11-02)
Unknown
I agree with Ralph that more should be said in the document about the nature of the experiment.
Ralph Droms Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Robert Sparks Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-11-02)
Unknown
Related to Russ' discuss (which I support): IANA has unanswered questions (Authors - you received them directly and can also see them at the line starting: 2011-10-31 06 Amanda Baber IANA has several questions about draft-ietf-mip4-nemo-haaro-06.txt. at <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mip4-nemo-haaro/history/>
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-11-03)
Unknown
The Gen-ART Review by Roni Even on 29-Oct-2011 raises two editorial comments. Please consider them. 1. Typo in Section 3.1, first paragraph: “alredy” 2. In Section 3.3.1: “only be when” change to “only when”; and “and and whose” delete one of the “and”.
Sean Turner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-11-03)
Unknown
I didn't get all the way through this one, but I did notice the following: Mention a random # and get a request to add a reference to RFC 4086 ;) Please add one in s3.2.2. Should probably also add a pointer in s3.2.1 because the keys generated need to be random too.
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-11-02)
Unknown
I'm assuming that these questions just reflect my ignorance of nemo, and since this is (currently) aimed at experimental, I'll not make them a discuss. (If it were going for PS, I think these would be discuss-worthy.) (1) I don't get how Kcr is setup as required in 3.2? Is Kcr supposed to be manually installed? Do all MR's need to have a different Kcr for all other MRs or is Kcr shared between the MR and HA? (2) 3.2.1 says an MR MAY generate a new key at any time. How is that distributed (securely)?
Wesley Eddy Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown