Mobile IPv4 Fast Handovers
RFC 4988
Yes
(Jari Arkko)
No Objection
(Chris Newman)
(Cullen Jennings)
(David Ward)
(Lisa Dusseault)
(Mark Townsley)
(Ron Bonica)
(Ross Callon)
(Tim Polk)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.
Lars Eggert
No Objection
Comment
(2007-06-05)
ABSTRACT: > Additional mechanisms may be defined in the > future versions of this document. Suggest to remove this sentence - this is being published now.
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
(was Discuss, Yes, Discuss, Yes)
Yes
Yes
()
Chris Newman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Cullen Jennings Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
David Ward Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Lisa Dusseault Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Mark Townsley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Ross Callon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2007-06-06)
Gen-ART Review by Francis Dupont ...
Some editorial comments:
at page 6 section 4.2:
- in FA COA mode -> in FA-COA mode
- for the FSU field, I propose to add a MUST somewhere,
for instance: are used -> MUST be used
For each field: XXX field must be -> XXX field is
Throughout: Acknowledgement -> Acknowledgment
In Security Considerations, page 8, there is nothing about replay
attacks, i.e., how the "come back to where you was" attack is
handled? In IPv6 the protection is provided by IPsec with in the
good case anti-replay, is it done in IPv4?
Tim Polk Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()