Mobile IPv6 Fast Handovers
draft-ietf-mipshop-rfc5268bis-01
Yes
(Jari Arkko)
No Objection
(Lars Eggert)
(Lisa Dusseault)
(Magnus Westerlund)
(Pasi Eronen)
(Ralph Droms)
(Robert Sparks)
(Ron Bonica)
(Ross Callon)
(Russ Housley)
(Tim Polk)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 01 and is now closed.
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2009-04-29)
Unknown
You seem to have accidentally removed a definite article from "and MUST send an FBU to PAR" in section 3.3. Or you have failed to remove the definite article from "In such networks, the PAR." 6.2.1.2 Finally, the New Access Router can always refuse handover, in which case it should indicate the reason in one of the available Code values. Is that SHOULD? And if so, why is it not MUST? (Yes, I know the text is copied from the equivalent in 5268.) Section 6.4 I know some of this is lifted from 5268, but I would prefer the prefix lengths to explicitly state that they are counting bits. The previous field called Length explicitly states "octets".
Alexey Melnikov Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2009-05-03)
Unknown
11. IANA Considerations [...] This document creates a new registry for the 'Subtype' field in the above ICMPv6 message, called the "FMIPv6 Message Types". IANA has assigned the following values. [...] The values '0' and '1' are reserved. The upper limit is 255. An RFC is required for new message assignment. The Subtype values 4 and 5 are deprecated and are marked as unassigned for future allocations. I don't know what is the predicted rate of allocations from this registry, but is it wise to unassign deprecated values to allow their reuse in the future?
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2009-05-06)
Unknown
I am aware that this document is at the third RFC iteration. I would have expected however at this phase at least to have the authors add information about operational impact and manageability considerations related to mobile IPv6 fast handovers.
Lars Eggert Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Lisa Dusseault Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Pasi Eronen Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ralph Droms Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Robert Sparks 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
()
Unknown
Tim Polk Former IESG member
(was No Record, Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2009-05-06)
Unknown
From the IANA Considerations: > This document defines a new ICMPv6 message, which has been allocated > from the ICMPv6 Type registry. > 154 FMIPv6 Messages Wasn't this message defined in 5268?