Network Mobility (NEMO) Extensions for Mobile IPv4
draft-ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base-11
Yes
(Jari Arkko)
No Objection
(Chris Newman)
(Cullen Jennings)
(Dan Romascanu)
(David Ward)
(Lisa Dusseault)
(Mark Townsley)
(Ron Bonica)
(Ross Callon)
(Tim Polk)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 11 and is now closed.
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
(was Discuss, Yes)
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Chris Newman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Cullen Jennings Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
David Ward Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Lars Eggert Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2008-02-07)
Unknown
Section 1., paragraph 0: > 1. Introduction For a document that is the base specification for network mobility, this introduction isn't introductory enough. It needs to provide something more generally understandable, and a few illustrations wouldn't hurt. There is a lot of text on what kinds of modes this is and isn't about and what kinds of optimizations are or aren't in scope, but very little that actually explains the basic ideas behind NEMO. (Or this section needs to point the reader at another draft that gives an introduction into NEMO.) Section 8., paragraph 0: > 8. Nested Mobile Networks Dave Borman's tsv-dir review resulted in the following suggested addition to this section: "Applications that do not support MTU discovery are adversely affected by the additional header encapsulations, because the usable MTU is reduced with each level of nesting."
Lisa Dusseault Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Mark Townsley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ross Callon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2008-02-06)
Unknown
Please delete Appendix A before publication as an RFC.
Tim Polk Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2008-02-06)
Unknown
While 3344bis has been moved to informative, the text references seem to indicate it is normative. The strongest statement is found in the first sentence of 6.1: A Home Agent MUST support all the operations specified in RFC 3344 [RFC3344] and its update [I-D.ietf-mip4-rfc3344bis] for Mobile Node support. I probably won't have time to review the delta between 3344 and 3344bis or sort out its implications for this spec. Perhaps one of the other ADs is in a position to determine whether 3344 is really informative or normative...