Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) Localized Routing Problem Statement
RFC 6279

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.

(Jari Arkko) Yes

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Stewart Bryant) No Objection

(Ralph Droms) No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

Comment (2011-03-15)
No email
send info
  Please consider the comments in the Gen-ART Review by Joel Halpern
  on 7-Mar-2011.  I believe the improved clarity will be helpful.

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

Comment (2011-03-16)
No email
send info
The comment is based in part on the OPS-DIR review performed by Nevil Brownlee. 

1) I do not think that the document needs to be blocked for this, but I think that such document should also deal with the the Operational and Manageability considerations and include a section on this respect. At a minimum I would have expected some refering or estimation on the impact on traffic parameters in the network as local routing is designed to reduce latency and backhaul load. Also do we expect any extra extensions or attributes to be needed in the interaction between MAG and RADIUS servers? 

2)  Missing also is any mention of scalability. This document describes the problem of optimising routing in a Local (i.e. single provider, or maybe 2~3 providers) setting. Scaling issues will need to be considered in an actual specification (clearly it will have to handle the maximum number of active mobile nodes).

(Peter Saint-Andre) No Objection

(Robert Sparks) No Objection

(Sean Turner) No Objection