Network Mobility (NEMO) Extensions for Mobile IPv4
RFC 5177

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 11 and is now closed.

Lars Eggert (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2008-02-07)
No email
send info
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."

(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) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(David Ward; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info

(Lisa Dusseault; 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

(Ross Callon; 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 (2008-02-06)
No email
send info
  Please delete Appendix A before publication as an RFC.

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

No Objection (2008-02-06)
No email
send info
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...