Separation of Control and User Plane for Proxy Mobile IPv6
draft-ietf-netext-pmip-cp-up-separation-07

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.

(Brian Haberman) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Richard Barnes) No Objection

Alissa Cooper No Objection

Spencer Dawkins No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) No Objection

Comment (2014-08-04 for -05)
No email
send info
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.

(Stephen Farrell) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2014-09-02)
No email
send info
Thanks for addressing my discuss points.

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

(Barry Leiba) No Objection

(Kathleen Moriarty) No Objection

(Pete Resnick) No Objection

Comment (2014-08-06 for -05)
No email
send info
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?

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection