Problem Statement: Mobile IPv4 Traversal of Virtual Private Network (VPN) Gateways
RFC 4093

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.

(Allison Mankin) Yes

(Thomas Narten) Yes

Comment (2004-02-12 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
Some quick comments. Overall I think the document is fine and I will
put it on the agenda for next week. But the references are off or
something. Maybe that can be fixed quickly.

>    1.  When the foreign network has an FA deployed (as in e.g. CDMA
>        2000), MIPv4 registration becomes impossible because the traffic
>        between MN and VPN gateway, which is what the FA sees, is
>        encrypted and the FA is not set up to decrypt it.

Isn't it worse than this, in that the FA is effectively relaying the
traffic and needs to be able to inspect it to do so? It's not just
needing to "see" it so to speak, is it?

2119 language not defined.  But 2119 in references. Some of the refs
are off. Maybe because the text forgot to reference 2119? I.e,

>   The MN obtains an address at its point of attachment (via DHCP[7] or

but [7] points to nat doc.

Would it be worth mentioning the MOBIKE work? Isn't that going to help
here? Not sure how to slip that in, but that effort seems relevant.

(Harald Alvestrand) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2004-11-04)
No email
send info
Reviewed by Scott Brim, Gen-ART

(Steven Bellovin) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Bill Fenner) No Objection

(Ned Freed) No Objection

(Ted Hardie) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Scott Hollenbeck) No Objection

(Russ Housley) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2004-03-16)
No email
send info
  The document refers to itself as "this draft."  This term will be
  inappropriate when it becomes an RFC.  Please use a more suitable term.

  Spell out first use of GPRS.

  Add definitions of MN and Intranet to section 1.3.  They are discussed in
  Section 2.

(David Kessens) No Objection

(Jon Peterson) No Objection