Skip to main content

DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation for Network Mobility (NEMO)
RFC 6276

Yes

(Jari Arkko)

No Objection

Lars Eggert
(Dan Romascanu)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Peter Saint-Andre)
(Robert Sparks)
(Ron Bonica)
(Sean Turner)

Recuse

(Ralph Droms)

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

Lars Eggert No Objection

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()

                            

(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2010-09-22)
There are a bunch of places where references are not given as citations.

s/RFC3775bis/[I-D.ietf-mext-rfc3775bis]/
s/RFC 3315/[RFC3315]/
s/RFC 3633/[RFC3633]/

---

Nit: Section 3.1

Suddenly you use "Delegating Router"

---

Nit:

MIPv6, HoA, and CoA are used without explanation.

BU is used without explanation (you can fix this a couple of lines
earlier)

---

Section 7. I love the use of RFC 2119 language :-)

(Alexey Melnikov; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2010-09-13)
I found the document to be hard to read. Maybe because it is starting to use acronyms without always expanding them first.

(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2010-12-23)

                            

(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Peter Saint-Andre; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2010-09-21)
  Please consider the comments in the Gen-ART Review by Miguel Garcia
  on 17-Sep-2010.

(Sean Turner; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Tim Polk; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2010-09-23)
in 3.3 paragraph 2 sentence, should "DHCPv6" be "DHCPv6PD"?  Current sentence is:

        However, an HA may choose not to respond to the Solicit
   messages from the MR because the HA does not provide DHCPv6.

In section 4 paragraph 3 theer is some awkward wording. Suggestion:

OLD
   We use the same format than that used by of [RFC4877].
NEW
   We use the same format used by [RFC4877].

Some other editorial issues were identified in Donald Eastlake's secdir review:

Section 3.1, page 5, "...currently used by the is about to expire..."
? perhaps "...by the Mobile Node..."

"an Mobile" -> "a Mobile"

Various acronyms, such as BU, HoA, while usually explained when first
used, are missing from Section 2. HoA is not explained at all. Even
better would be to vastly reduce the overuse of acronyms throughout
this document.

(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) Recuse

Recuse ()