Runtime Local Mobility Anchor (LMA) Assignment Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6
RFC 6463

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 12 and is now closed.

(Jari Arkko) Yes

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Stewart Bryant) No Objection

(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection

(Ralph Droms) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2011-04-26)
No email
send info
In section 4.1, the following text is unclear to me:

   When this
   option is included, the MAG may be assigned with another LMA, and the
   assigned LMA may simultaneously create a Binding Cache Entry (BCE).
   Hence, the MAG including this option MUST be able to support runtime
   LMA assignment with and without a creation of a BCE in the runtime
   assigned LMA.

As I understand the architecture of the LMA, the BCE is an
implementation structure in the LMA and not immediately visible to the
MAG.  What change in behavior on the part of the MAG is required to
support these two different scenarios?

Nits:

In section 4.1, BCE is expanded in RFC 5213, which is pointed to in
the Terminology section.  For consistency, no need to expand it here.

In section 4.1, s/There can  zero/There can be zero/

End of section 5.1, s/treat the of the PBA/process the PBA/

In section 5.2, is "LMA" as used in this section equivalent to
"runtime assignment domain" as defined in the terminology section?

Section 7 seems superfluous, and it mentions three configuration
variables but only lists two.

Is there a registry for the Status values defined in section 9?

(Wesley Eddy) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2011-04-20)
No email
send info
Some typos:
-in section 1, "practise" -> "practice"
-in section 1, "due caching" -> "due to caching"
-missing period at end of section 3
-in section 5.1, "at time" -> "at a time"
-in section 5.1, "the of the" -> "the"

(Adrian Farrel) (was Discuss, No Objection) No Objection

Comment (2011-09-05)
No email
send info
Thank you for fixing my earlier Comment

(Stephen Farrell) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Russ Housley) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2011-04-21)
No email
send info
Please consider the minor and editorial comments from the Gen-ART
  Review by Pete McCann on 14-Apr-2011.

(Pete Resnick) No Objection

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

Comment (2011-04-28 for -)
No email
send info
Section 7. Configuration variables starts by mentioning that three configuration variables are defined in the document, and then defines ... two. 

Also - why are these called 'configuration variables' and not 'configuration objects'? 

(Peter Saint-Andre) No Objection

(Robert Sparks) No Objection

(Sean Turner) No Objection