Mobile IPv6 Bootstrapping in Split Scenario
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.
(Jari Arkko) (was Discuss, Yes) Yes
(Ron Bonica) No Objection
(Lars Eggert) No Objection
Comment (2007-06-20 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
For all the different components of the solution, the document discusses a number of design options before describing the recommended solution. I find this confusing. It would be much cleaner if there was a normative section that talked about what is recommended, and an informative section (or appendix) that would discuss options that are not part of the recommended set. INTRODUCTION, paragraph 13: > The solution defined in this document solves the Mobile IPv6 > bootstrapping problem (RFC4640) when the Mobile Node's mobility > service is authorized by a different service provider than basic > network access, and is therefore generically applicable to any > bootstrapping case. I'm a bit confused by this. Title says this is for "split scenario" bootstrapping. Abstract then says it's therefore generally applicable for any bootstrapping scenario? (Also, it'd be good if the abstract could define the words "split scenario" from the title somewhere, so that folks not familiar with the term understand what it means.) Section 5.1., paragraph 1: > As > mentioned before in the document, the only information that needs to > be pre-configured on the Mobile Node is the domain name of the > Mobility Service Provider. This paragraph says "need only domain name." Next paragraph says "MN is configured with DNS server." So apparently MN needs to be configure with at least two pieces of information?