Mobile IPv6 Fast Handovers
RFC 5568

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 01 and is now closed.

Lars Eggert No Objection

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()
No email
send info

(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2009-04-29)
No email
send info
You seem to have accidentally removed a definite article from "and MUST send an FBU to PAR" in section 3.3. Or you have failed to remove the definite article from "In such networks, the PAR."

6.2.1.2
   Finally, the New Access Router can always refuse handover, in which
   case it should indicate the reason in one of the available Code
   values.
Is that SHOULD? And if so, why is it not MUST?
(Yes, I know the text is copied from the equivalent in 5268.)

Section 6.4
I know some of this is lifted from 5268, but I would prefer the prefix lengths to explicitly state that they are counting bits. The previous field called Length explicitly states "octets".

(Alexey Melnikov; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2009-05-03)
No email
send info
11.  IANA Considerations

 [...]

   This document creates a new registry for the 'Subtype' field in the
   above ICMPv6 message, called the "FMIPv6 Message Types".  IANA has
   assigned the following values.

 [...]

   The values '0' and '1' are reserved.  The upper limit is 255.  An RFC
   is required for new message assignment.  The Subtype values 4 and 5
   are deprecated and are marked as unassigned for future allocations.

I don't know what is the predicted rate of allocations from this
registry, but is it wise to unassign deprecated values to allow their reuse in the future?

(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2009-05-06)
No email
send info
I am aware that this document is at the third RFC iteration. I would have expected however at this phase at least to have the authors add information about operational impact and manageability considerations related to mobile IPv6 fast handovers.

(Lisa Dusseault; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Pasi Eronen; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Ross Callon; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

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

No Objection ()
No email
send info

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

No Objection (2009-05-06)
No email
send info
From the IANA Considerations:

>   This document defines a new ICMPv6 message, which has been allocated
>   from the ICMPv6 Type registry.

>      154 FMIPv6 Messages

Wasn't this message defined in 5268?