Hi Elwyn, Sorry for the late reply. Thanks for reviewing the updated draft. We will address the two remaining issues. Please see inline.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Elwyn Davies [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 5:57 AM > To: General Area Review Team > Cc: Mary Barnes; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; IETF > Discussion > Subject: Gen-art review of draft-ietf-netlmm-proxymip6-11.txt > > > I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) > reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see > http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). > > Please wait for direction from your document shepherd > or AD before posting a new version of the draft. > > > Document: draft-ietf-netlmm-proxymip6-11.txt > Reviewer: Elwyn Davies > Review Date: 29 Feb 2008 > IESG Telechat date: 06 March 2008 > > Summary: > Version 11 resolves almost all of the issues and nits that I > raised in the last > call review of version 10. There is one editorial matter to > complete the 'ease > of reading' and an outstanding query which I think both I and > the authors passed > over a little lightly at the previous review. > Sorry, may be I missed it. > An editorial update added to s3, para 4 (just after fig 1) to > emphasize the > pivotal role of the MN-Identity would be helpful. Something like: > 'The authenticated, stable identifier of the mobile node > (MN-Identifier) > uniquely identifies the mobile node to the LMA(s) as the node > roams through the > Proxy Mobile Domain.' > The properties and the requirements related to MN Identifier are specified in Section 6.6. If you think, we need to cover this in the initial introductory section. Sure, we can add the above text. > Outstanding query: s6.1, bullet 2: This bullet refers to > '*the* interface > identifier' and suggests that it might be retrieved from a > Router Solicitation. > My original point was that the IID for IPv6 addresses is > not necessarily > common between the addresses configured on an interface. My > comment was a > little glib and the authors glossed over the point in their > reply. I think this > bullet may require clarification to indicate which of the > IIDs would be implied > here. Particularly if SEND is in use, the IID used for the > link local address > (that would typically be found in the solicitation) will a.s. > differ from the > IID used with the address assigned out of the prefix > allocated by Proxy MIP. My > original point was to ask the authors to clarify whether > ProxyMIP actually cares > which IID is used and, accordingly, state either that 'it > doesn't matter' or > specifically which IID should be transmitted. > > This is the interface identifier (layer-2) and not the L3 identifier. This is covered in the terminology section, "Mobile Node Interface Identifier (MN-Interface-Identifier)". The need for the L2 interface identifier (such as MAC address) is to predictably identify the interface of a mobile node. The Access Technology Type in combination with the interface identifier is used as the index field in the BCE. Looks like this is not implied. We can point to the "MN-Interface-Identifier" term and that should probably make it clear. Thanks again, for the review. Hopefully this addresses all the issues raised by the Gen-art review. Best Regards Sri > _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
