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-hip-mm-05.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 03 April 2007 IESG Telechat date: 05 April 2007 Summary: Not Ready Comments: I'll send full comments in some hours (with a better network connection) but I have a real issue (so the summary) with the Abstract which IMHO is not coherent (i.e., it doesn't say the same thing from beginning to the end. BTW it doesn't describe the real content of the document too, which seems to be between the two sides). Here I quote it to get other opinions: This document defines mobility and multihoming extensions to the Host Identity Protocol (HIP). Specifically, this document defines a general "LOCATOR" parameter for HIP messages that allows for a HIP host to notify peers about alternate addresses at which it may be reached. This document also defines elements of procedure for mobility of a HIP host-- the process by which a host dynamically changes the primary locator that it uses to receive packets. While the same LOCATOR parameter can also be used to support end-host multihoming, detailed procedures are left for further study. There are some other points but not critical at one exception (I'll send them ASAP). Regards [EMAIL PROTECTED] PS: IMHO the document provides readdressing which is a limited form of mobility (as explained inside the document, so the issue is in the wording) and a limited form of multihoming too. Perhaps the source of the problem is the mixed between the mechanism and its usage? _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
