Mobile IPv6 Bootstrapping in Split Scenario
RFC 5026

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.

Lars Eggert No Objection

Comment (2007-06-20 for -)
No email
send info
  For all the different components of the solution, the document
  discusses a number of design options before describing the recommended
  solution. I find this confusing. It would be much cleaner if there was
  a normative section that talked about what is recommended, and an
  informative section (or appendix) that would discuss options that are
  not part of the recommended set.

INTRODUCTION, paragraph 13:
>    The solution defined in this document solves the Mobile IPv6
>    bootstrapping problem (RFC4640) when the Mobile Node's mobility
>    service is authorized by a different service provider than basic
>    network access, and is therefore generically applicable to any
>    bootstrapping case.

  I'm a bit confused by this. Title says this is for "split scenario"
  bootstrapping. Abstract then says it's therefore generally applicable
  for any bootstrapping scenario? (Also, it'd be good if the abstract
  could define the words "split scenario" from the title somewhere, so
  that folks not familiar with the term understand what it means.)


Section 5.1., paragraph 1:
>    As
>    mentioned before in the document, the only information that needs to
>    be pre-configured on the Mobile Node is the domain name of the
>    Mobility Service Provider.

  This paragraph says "need only domain name." Next paragraph says "MN
  is configured with DNS server." So apparently MN needs to be configure
  with at least two pieces of information?

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) (was Discuss, Yes) Yes

Yes ()
No email
send info

(Chris Newman; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info

(Cullen Jennings; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info

(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info

(David Ward; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info

(Jon Peterson; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info

(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info

(Mark Townsley; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info

(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Sam Hartman; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Tim Polk; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info