Network Mobility (NEMO) Extensions for Mobile IPv4
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 11 and is now closed.Search Mailarchive
(Jari Arkko) (was Discuss, Yes) Yes
(Ron Bonica) No Objection
(Ross Callon) No Objection
(Lisa Dusseault) No Objection
(Lars Eggert) (was Discuss) No Objection
Section 1., paragraph 0: > 1. Introduction For a document that is the base specification for network mobility, this introduction isn't introductory enough. It needs to provide something more generally understandable, and a few illustrations wouldn't hurt. There is a lot of text on what kinds of modes this is and isn't about and what kinds of optimizations are or aren't in scope, but very little that actually explains the basic ideas behind NEMO. (Or this section needs to point the reader at another draft that gives an introduction into NEMO.) Section 8., paragraph 0: > 8. Nested Mobile Networks Dave Borman's tsv-dir review resulted in the following suggested addition to this section: "Applications that do not support MTU discovery are adversely affected by the additional header encapsulations, because the usable MTU is reduced with each level of nesting."
(Russ Housley) (was Discuss) No Objection
Please delete Appendix A before publication as an RFC.
(Cullen Jennings) No Objection
(Chris Newman) No Objection
(Tim Polk) (was Discuss) No Objection
While 3344bis has been moved to informative, the text references seem to indicate it is normative. The strongest statement is found in the first sentence of 6.1: A Home Agent MUST support all the operations specified in RFC 3344 [RFC3344] and its update [I-D.ietf-mip4-rfc3344bis] for Mobile Node support. I probably won't have time to review the delta between 3344 and 3344bis or sort out its implications for this spec. Perhaps one of the other ADs is in a position to determine whether 3344 is really informative or normative...