Mobile IPv6 Experimental Messages
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.
(Jari Arkko) Yes
(Ron Bonica) No Objection
(Lisa Dusseault) No Objection
(Lars Eggert) No Objection
Comment (2007-09-20 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
Section 1., paragraph 1: > gets deployed with these messages. Therefore it is considered a good > practice to set aside some messages for experimental purposes. The > need for experimental messages is shown in . It's not _messages_ that are typically set aside for experimentation, it's _codepoints_ to allow identification of experimental messages. Suggest to clarify this throughout the document. Section 5., paragraph 0: > 5. Security Considerations Please see the security considerations of RFC 4727 - three of the four paragraphs seem to apply here as well.
(Sam Hartman) No Objection
(Russ Housley) No Objection
Comment (2007-09-17 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
From Gen-ART review by Francis Dupont. In abstract page 1: s/header/Header/ BTW as MH is the common abbrev Mobility Header should always get the 'H'. This is not clear for Mobility Option but a choice has to be done and applied... ToC and section 7: s/Acknowledgements/Acknowledgments/ Section 1, page 3: s/Proxy MIPv6/Proxy Mobile IPv6/ The figure in page 3 seems a bit strange because some important and decribed fields are not in it. I believe it is directly from RFC 3775 section 6.1 "Mobility Header" which gives only the content of messages, so IMHO this section needs an explicit reference to RFC 3775 section 6.1.
(Cullen Jennings) No Objection
(Chris Newman) No Objection
(Jon Peterson) No Objection
(Tim Polk) No Objection
Comment (2007-09-18 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
The introduction generally does a nice job identifying message handling requirements that are inherited from RFC 3775. One instance was missed, though: a reader without a MIPv6 background could interpret the following text (section 1, paragraph 3) as imposing a new requirement: Mobile nodes that do not recognize the mobility message type should discard the message and send an ICMP Parameter problem with code 0. I suggest adding a reference to 3775, as with the processing requirements for Home Agent or correspondent node implementations in the previous sentence.