Note: This ballot was opened for revision 08 and is now closed.
Summary: Needs 6 more YES or NO OBJECTION positions to pass.
Comment (2012-05-07 for -10)
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.
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.
Comment (2012-06-05 for -10)
I've cleared my Discuss position and thanks for reconciling my concerns.
4. In section 4.1, does "LR state of the MAG" refer to the state in the
LMA? Also, is pMAG == MAG?
6. In section 10.1, "for now" is unnecessary. Why is the alignment
requirement mentioned here and not for the definitions in section 9?