Localized Routing for Proxy Mobile IPv6
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 08 and is now closed.
Jari Arkko Yes
(Brian Haberman) Yes
(Ron Bonica) No Objection
(Stewart Bryant) No Objection
(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection
(Ralph Droms) (was Discuss) No Objection
I've cleared my Discuss position and thanks for reconciling my concerns. 1. Fixed. 2. Fixed. 3. Fixed. 4. In section 4.1, does "LR state of the MAG" refer to the state in the LMA? Also, is pMAG == MAG? 5. Fixed. 6. In section 10.1, "for now" is unnecessary. Why is the alignment requirement mentioned here and not for the definitions in section 9?
(Wesley Eddy) No Objection
(Adrian Farrel) (was Discuss) No Objection
Having ploughed through the wdiff for the latest revision, and looking at the email thread between Suresh and Les, I believe all of my Discuss issues have been resolved. Thanks for the work.
Stephen Farrell No Objection
Comment (2012-02-29 for -08)
- LR with two MAGs implies that MAG1 knows that MAG2 is the CN's location at the granularity of the MAG (MAG2) with which the CN is associated.. Since there is a way for a MAG to initiate this then a bad or compromised MAG could attempt to track any CN for which LR is enabled who's address the bad MAG knows. That is a privacy problem for the CN's. I noted this about the DIME WG equivalent draft and the authors of tha suggested that text as per the above would be better in this document. I'm not sure there's a mitigation here really but I'd say its worth noting at least. - Figures 1 and 2 have no real caption and aren't referred to from the text so are less useful than they could be.