Sri Gundavelli wrote: > Hi Elwyn, > > Sorry for the late reply. Thanks for reviewing the updated > draft. We will address the two remaining issues. Please > see inline. > > > No problem.. I am stuck in a hotel in Toronto, nit getting to IETF. :-(((
Snipped the first issue as that should be fine. > > >> 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. > OK.. I think some clarification is required to make sure that you always get the same IID. As specified I didn't grok that it had to be the same one from wherever the node roams to. I think a few extra words will sort that out and then we are done. Thanks Elwyn > 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
