Analysis of IPv6 Link Models for 802.16 Based Networks
RFC 4968

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

Lars Eggert No Objection

Comment (2007-04-02)
No email
send info
INTRODUCTION, paragraph 2:
>          Analysis of IPv6 Link Models for 802.16 based Networks

  Add "IEEE" in front of 802.16 and other IEEE spec numbers throughout
  the document.


Section 6., paragraph 0:
>    3.  IPv6 Link Models for 802.16 based Networks . . . . . . . . . .  4
>      3.1.  Shared IPv6 Prefix Link Model  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
>        3.1.1.  Prefix Assignment  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
>        3.1.2.  Address Autoconfiguration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
>        3.1.3.  Duplicate Address Detection  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
>        3.1.4.  Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
>        3.1.5.  Applicability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
...
>    4.  Renumbering  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
>    5.  Effect on Dormant Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

  It's confusing to see some characteristics being discussed in
  subsections (e.g., Prefix Assignment) and others in standalone
  sections (e.g., Renumbering). Also, a discussion of DAD for the
  point-to-point model seems to be missing?


  Expand acronyms on first use (MS, BS, CS, etc.)


Section 802.16, paragraph 2:
>    And finally this document provides a
>    recommendation for choosing one link model that best suits for the
>    deployment.

  Section 6 doesn't state _a_ recommendation. It basically says that all
  three models are useful in some deployments. Not sure how useful
  this is.

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()
No email
send info

(Chris Newman; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2007-04-04)
No email
send info
Nits:
Section 3.1 para 1:
   for constructing their global IPv6 addresses, however this model does
   not any multicast capability.  The following figures illustrates high
      ^                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^
   provide?                                             illustrate a
   level view of this link model wherein one more prefixes advertised on
                                            ^
                                            or

(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(David Ward; former steering group member) (was No Record, No Objection, No Record, Discuss) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Mark Townsley; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2007-04-04)
No email
send info
3.2.3.1.  Reuse of existing standards

   This solution reuses RFC 2461, 2462, and if PPP is used, RFC 2472 and
   RFC 2516.  No changes in these protocols are required, the protocols
   must only be configured properly.

Some of these RFCs are not "Standards" - RFC2516 is an an Informational RFC Editor's submission, for example.

(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Ross Callon; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2007-04-03)
No email
send info
  Gen-ART Review by Gonzalo Camarillo.

  Acronyms (e.g., MS, BS, and MLD) should be expanded on their first use.

  The draft talks about WiMAX defining the WiMAX transport connection but
  does not provide a reference.

(Tim Polk; former steering group member) (was Discuss, No Objection, Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2007-04-16)
No email
send info

(Sam Hartman; former steering group member) Abstain

Abstain (2007-04-19)
No email
send info
partially harmless.