Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol
RFC 3963
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.
(Margaret Cullen; former steering group member) Yes
(Alex Zinin; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Allison Mankin; former steering group member) No Objection
(Bert Wijnen; former steering group member) No Objection
I see two "sections" named "References" I assume the first one is normative refs and 2nd one is informative refs.
(Bill Fenner; former steering group member) No Objection
(David Kessens; former steering group member) No Objection
(Harald Alvestrand; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
Not all considerations for which I put in a DISCUSS have been fixed. Version -03 section 8 says (unchanged): > When the Mobile Router is attached to the home link, it runs a > routing protocol by sending routing updates through its egress > interface. When the mobile router moves and attaches to a visited > network, it MUST stop sending routing updates on the interface > with which it attaches to the visited link. But the other comment is, so I'm changing this to a comment. Further comments from Gen-ART reviewer Michael Patton on this URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/reviews/draft-ietf-nemo-basic-support-02-patton.txt
(Jon Peterson; former steering group member) No Objection
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection
Section 2: s/defined in [8] [9]./defined in [8] and [9]./
(Scott Hollenbeck; former steering group member) No Objection
Editorial nits: The NEMO acronym should be spelled out as "Network Mobility" in the abstract. Section 2: RFC 2119 is cited as reference #2, but it's not listed among the references. Section 4.2 (first instance): I noticed that all of the numeric values used in the document for things like status values aren't clearly identified as being represented in decimal format. With values like "128" it's obvious, but at a quick glance values like "140" aren't so clear. draft-ietf-mobileip-ipv6-24.txt, which is being expanded upon, does the same thing so I can understand continuing the convention. I think it would be a good idea, though, to clearly note that these are decimal values and not octal values.
(Steven Bellovin; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Ted Hardie; former steering group member) No Objection
I'm a bit confused by this text in section 5.6: When the Mobile Router is at home, it MAY be configured to send Router Advertisements and reply to Router Solicitations on the interface attached to the home link. The value of the Router Lifetime field MUST be set to zero to prevent other nodes from configuring the Mobile Router as the default router. I don't see cases where the mobile router would have a different upstream link in its home link than a non-mobile router on this link. Is there a use case where it is expected that all the routers on the home link might be mobile routers (so only mobile routers are replying to RSs?) Not a blocking comment, obviously; I'm just curious about the use case that drives this.