Home Network Prefix Renumbering in Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6)
RFC 8191

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

Suresh Krishnan Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Alia Atlas) No Objection

Deborah Brungard No Objection

Comment (2017-02-28 for -06)
No email
send info
Agree with Mirja's comment, it would be clearer if use normative language.

(Ben Campbell) No Objection

Comment (2017-03-01 for -06)
No email
send info
A couple of editorial comments:

- Abstract: The last sentence is convoluted; please consider simplifying it.

-3, first paragraph: "... the LMA has to notify a
   new HNP to a MAG...": Does this mean the same as "LMA has to notify a MAG about a new HNP"? If so,  I think the text as written has the wrong direct object for "notify".

Alissa Cooper No Objection

Comment (2017-02-28 for -06)
No email
send info
In the abstract, I would suggest

s/as an update of the PMIPv6 specification./as an optional extension of the PMIPv6 specification./

to be crystal clear that this is not a formal update.

(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection

(Stephen Farrell) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2017-03-02 for -06)
No email
send info
Section 7 says: "The protection of UPN and UPA
messages in this document follows [RFC5213] and
[RFC7077]." I'm not clear if "follows" means the same
as "MUST be protected using end-to-end security
association(s) offering integrity and data origin
authentication" (RFC5213, section 4). I think it ought
really, as otherwise this could subvert the security
of PMIPv6. So wouldn't it make sense to be explicit
that these new messages have the same MUST
requirements as binding updates. Doing that by
repeating the quoted text from 5213 would be a fine
way to do that, but there may be better options.

The above was a discuss ballot. The AD and an 
author agreed with the interpretation above that
that adding a clarification might be good so I've
cleared the discuss assuming they'll do that
nicely. (Thanks).

OLD COMMENT below

- It might also be worth saying in section 7 that to
provision a new HNP someone has to have setup all the
IPsec stuff for that.

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

Mirja K├╝hlewind No Objection

Comment (2017-02-28 for -06)
No email
send info
This document has a 2119 boilerplate but doesn't use normative language. I think it would actually be good to use normative language!

Minor questions:
- secion 4: "This temporary binding should only be used for the downwards packet transmission"
  By downward you mean 'to the MN', right? 
  Why is this? Does that actually help in any scenario?

- I'm not sure why section 3 is titled 'PMIPv6 Extensions'...?

(Terry Manderson) No Objection

(Kathleen Moriarty) No Objection

Comment (2017-03-01 for -06)
No email
send info
I agree with Stephen's discuss point.

Adam Roach No Objection