Sign in
Version 5.13.0, 2015-03-25
Report a bug

Network Mobility (NEMO) Extensions for Mobile IPv4
RFC 5177

(was Discuss, Yes)
No Objection
(was Discuss)
(was Discuss)
(was Discuss)
(was Discuss)

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

Summary: Needs 9 more YES or NO OBJECTION positions to pass.

[Lars Eggert]

Comment (2008-02-07 for -11)

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

[Russ Housley]

Comment (2008-02-06 for -11)

  Please delete Appendix A before publication as an RFC.

[Tim Polk]

Comment (2008-02-06 for -11)

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

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...