Mobile IPv6 Experimental Messages
RFC 5096

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' **)
No email
send info
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 [3].

  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' **)
No email
send info
  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' **)
No email
send info
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.

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

(Mark Townsley) (was Discuss) No Objection

(David Ward) (was Discuss) No Objection

Magnus Westerlund No Objection