Localized Routing for Proxy Mobile IPv6
RFC 6705

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 08 and is now closed.

(Jari Arkko) Yes

(Brian Haberman) Yes

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Stewart Bryant) No Objection

(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection

(Ralph Droms) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2012-06-05)
No email
send info
I've cleared my Discuss position and thanks for reconciling my concerns.

1. Fixed.

2. Fixed.

3. Fixed.

4. In section 4.1, does "LR state of the MAG" refer to the state in the
LMA?  Also, is pMAG == MAG?

5. Fixed.

6. In section 10.1, "for now" is unnecessary.  Why is the alignment
requirement mentioned here and not for the definitions in section 9?

(Wesley Eddy) No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2012-05-07)
No email
send info
Having ploughed through the wdiff for the latest revision, and looking at the email thread between Suresh and Les, I believe all of my Discuss issues have been resolved. Thanks for the work.

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

Comment (2012-02-29 for -08)
No email
send info
- LR with two MAGs implies that MAG1 knows that MAG2 is the CN's 
location at the granularity of the MAG (MAG2) with which the CN
is associated.. Since there is a way for a MAG to initiate this 
then a bad or compromised MAG could attempt to track any CN 
for which LR is enabled who's address the bad MAG knows. That 
is a privacy problem for the CN's. I noted this about the DIME WG 
equivalent draft and the authors of tha suggested that text as per 
the above would be better in this document. I'm not sure there's
a mitigation here really but I'd say its worth noting at least.

- Figures 1 and 2 have no real caption and aren't referred to
from the text so are less useful than they could be.

(Russ Housley) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Peter Saint-Andre) No Objection

(Robert Sparks) No Objection