Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) Localized Routing Problem Statement
draft-ietf-netext-pmip6-lr-ps-06
Yes
(Jari Arkko)
No Objection
(Adrian Farrel)
(Peter Saint-Andre)
(Ralph Droms)
(Robert Sparks)
(Ron Bonica)
(Sean Turner)
(Stewart Bryant)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-03-16)
Unknown
The comment is based in part on the OPS-DIR review performed by Nevil Brownlee. 1) I do not think that the document needs to be blocked for this, but I think that such document should also deal with the the Operational and Manageability considerations and include a section on this respect. At a minimum I would have expected some refering or estimation on the impact on traffic parameters in the network as local routing is designed to reduce latency and backhaul load. Also do we expect any extra extensions or attributes to be needed in the interaction between MAG and RADIUS servers? 2) Missing also is any mention of scalability. This document describes the problem of optimising routing in a Local (i.e. single provider, or maybe 2~3 providers) setting. Scaling issues will need to be considered in an actual specification (clearly it will have to handle the maximum number of active mobile nodes).
Peter Saint-Andre 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
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-03-15)
Unknown
Please consider the comments in the Gen-ART Review by Joel Halpern on 7-Mar-2011. I believe the improved clarity will be helpful.
Sean Turner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown