Runtime Local Mobility Anchor (LMA) Assignment Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6
draft-ietf-netext-redirect-12
Yes
(Jari Arkko)
No Objection
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Pete Resnick)
(Peter Saint-Andre)
(Robert Sparks)
(Ron Bonica)
(Sean Turner)
(Stephen Farrell)
(Stewart Bryant)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 12 and is now closed.
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
(was Discuss, No Objection)
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-09-05)
Unknown
Thank you for fixing my earlier Comment
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-04-28)
Unknown
Section 7. Configuration variables starts by mentioning that three configuration variables are defined in the document, and then defines ... two. Also - why are these called 'configuration variables' and not 'configuration objects'?
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Peter Saint-Andre Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ralph Droms Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-04-26)
Unknown
In section 4.1, the following text is unclear to me: When this option is included, the MAG may be assigned with another LMA, and the assigned LMA may simultaneously create a Binding Cache Entry (BCE). Hence, the MAG including this option MUST be able to support runtime LMA assignment with and without a creation of a BCE in the runtime assigned LMA. As I understand the architecture of the LMA, the BCE is an implementation structure in the LMA and not immediately visible to the MAG. What change in behavior on the part of the MAG is required to support these two different scenarios? Nits: In section 4.1, BCE is expanded in RFC 5213, which is pointed to in the Terminology section. For consistency, no need to expand it here. In section 4.1, s/There can zero/There can be zero/ End of section 5.1, s/treat the of the PBA/process the PBA/ In section 5.2, is "LMA" as used in this section equivalent to "runtime assignment domain" as defined in the terminology section? Section 7 seems superfluous, and it mentions three configuration variables but only lists two. Is there a registry for the Status values defined in section 9?
Robert Sparks Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-09-06)
Unknown
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-04-21)
Unknown
Please consider the minor and editorial comments from the Gen-ART Review by Pete McCann on 14-Apr-2011.
Sean Turner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-08-19)
Unknown
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Wesley Eddy Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-04-20)
Unknown
Some typos: -in section 1, "practise" -> "practice" -in section 1, "due caching" -> "due to caching" -missing period at end of section 3 -in section 5.1, "at time" -> "at a time" -in section 5.1, "the of the" -> "the"