Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) Key Option for Proxy Mobile IPv6
RFC 5845

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.

(Jari Arkko) Yes

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Ross Callon) No Objection

(Ralph Droms) (was Discuss, No Objection) No Objection

(Lisa Dusseault) No Objection

Comment (2009-04-22 for -)
No email
send info
The document could explain the need for having an encapsulation mode without keys.  So far, it's not clear why two modes (and associated complexity) are needed if the mode with keys could handle all the encapsulation-only use cases.

(Lars Eggert) No Objection

(Pasi Eronen) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) No Objection

Comment (2009-04-19 for -)
No email
send info
Although the references to 3775 and 5213 for terminology are clear, it would still be nice if some of the acronyms were expanded on first use.

(Russ Housley) No Objection

Comment (2009-04-21 for -)
No email
send info
  Please consider the comments in the Gen-ART Review by Spencer Dawkins
  posted on 21 April 2009.  All of the comments are minor, although I'd
  like to see a wording change to address this one:
  >
  > Is "vanilla" a clearly-understood term of art? :-)

(Cullen Jennings) No Objection

(Tim Polk) (was No Record, Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2009-04-23 for -)
No email
send info
Section 3.3.2, paragraphs 2 and 3...

It is unclear why the MAG is permitted to either pick a new downlink key or use the same
downlink key after handoff, but the LMA is required to use the same uplink key.  Does the
protocol fail if the LMA selects a new uplink key?

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

(Robert Sparks) No Objection

Comment (2009-04-22 for -)
No email
send info
The 2nd bullet on page 10 last sentence could be misinterpreted such that this MAG NEVER sends that LMA a future message with a GRE Key Option. Consider clarifying the scope of the restriction?

Magnus Westerlund No Objection