Hello folks,
Here are the rest of my comments on the
abovementioned Internet Draft.
====================================================================
> For this reason, it is recommended that when the MIPv6 home
> link is implemented as a PMIPv6 domain, the HA/LMA implementation
> treats the two protocol as independent.
Why not first recommend that the HA/LMA implement some
platform-specific mechanism for identifying the alternate
identifiers (e.g., MN-ID and MN-HoA)?
> "More in details the following principles ..."
--> "In more detail, the following principles ..."
> " ... The mobile node needs to bootstrap"
--> " ... The mobile node may need to bootstrap"
> service continuity. Therefore the following steps must be performed
> by the UE:
-->
service continuity. Therefore the following steps might be
performed by the MN:
In the following steps one and two: "needs to" --> "may need to"
In step three: "assign" --> "may assign"
"Since all these steps must" --> "If all these steps must"
"that the mobile node establishes" --> "that the mobile node establish"
or, better:
> it is recommended
> that the mobile node establishes
-->
"the mobile node SHOULD establish"
along with a little rewording of the next subordinate clause.
"has Mobile IPv6 stack active"
--> "continues to make use of Mobile IPv6"
"as if it is attached" --> "as if it were attached"
-- BUT: in the scenario under discussion, isn't it?
[boot-integrated]:
This citation needs to be updated; and, apparently it now
has a distinguished author as well as an editor. But, it's
been in the RFC editor's queue for TWO YEARS?! That's a
new one on me.
"MN-HoA.For" --> "MN-HoA. For"
is this a bug in xml2rfc?
> For this reason, the mobile
> node must be configured to propose MN-HoA as the home address in the
> IKEv2 INTERNAL_IP6_ADDRESS attribute during the IKEv2 exchange with
> the HA/LMA.
I think this qualifies as another requirement placed by PMIP
on MIPv6 nodes. Maybe it would be a good idea to make a new
section and list these requirements newly placed by PMIP.
I'm starting to wonder whether these new mandates might
belong in rfc3775bis.
"When the mobile node hands over" --> "When the mobile node migrates to"
<basestations perform handovers, not mobile nodes>
> The
> mobile node may set the R bit defined in NEMO specification
a) citation required for "NEMO specification"
b) "NEMO specification" --> "the NEMO specification"
c) _ouch_! Now we have a new mandate placed by PMIP onto NEMO.<!>
"is created irrespective" --> "may be created regardless"
<I think it is unwise to prohibit implementers from
coordinating the binding cache entries of PMIP and
MIPv6 if they serve the same mobile node, as I have
mentioned earlier>
"In this section it is assumed"
-->
"In this section we consider the case where"
> 4.3. Solutions related to scenario B
This conflicts with the sentence in section 1:
> this document presents and
> identifies all issues pertained to these scenarios and discusses
> possible means and mechanisms that are recommended to enable them.
====================================================================
On 5/3/2010 7:24 AM, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Network-based Localized Mobility
Management WG (netlmm) to consider the following document:
- 'Interactions between PMIPv6 and MIPv6: scenarios and related issues '
<draft-ietf-netlmm-mip-interactions-05.txt> as an Informational RFC
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2010-05-17. Exceptionally,
comments may be sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please
retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
The file can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-netlmm-mip-interactions-05.txt
IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=17831&rfc_flag=0
_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce mailing list
IETF-Announce@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf