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
