Mobile IPv4 Challenge/Response Extensions (Revised)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.
(Margaret Cullen) Yes
(Bill Fenner) No Objection
(Ted Hardie) No Objection
(Scott Hollenbeck) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Russ Housley) (was Discuss) No Objection
Please reference RFC 4086 instead of RFC 1750.
(Allison Mankin) No Objection
(Jon Peterson) No Objection
(Mark Townsley) No Objection
(Alex Zinin) No Objection
(Brian Carpenter) Abstain
The Gen-ART review from Elwyn Davies cuts very deep so like Sam, I will abstain. Summary of the review: ...this draft needs considerably more work to be a useful PS. There has to be some doubt, given the use of CHAP, whether it is *worth* devoting too much effort to it, but that is a decision for others. The overall impression that comes over from the document is a hurried attempt to patch up a crumbling edifice that maybe ought to be demolished and rebuilt differently. The convoluted logic described and the fact that it is extensions to, combinations of or realignments of about three other protocols makes it extremely difficult to see whether the whole thing could be correct - the additions since RFC3012 appear to be attempts to fix something that was pretty broken! Full review (actually of the previous version, but still applicable); http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/reviews/draft-ietf-mip4-rfc3012bis-04-davies.txt
(Sam Hartman) Abstain
I didn't like this for MIP6 and for the same reasons I cannot support it for MIP4. I understand it's already on the standards track so I'm not going to block the document.