RE: [Mipshop] Re: [16NG] FW: Call for Review on FMIP6 over IEEE 802.16eNetworks

Hi Frank,

>
>The draft is based on RFC4068, and point-to-point link model 
>is also recommended .
>RFC4068 is based on shared link model, and is not applicable 
>for point-to-point link model without modification.
>So,  there are some basic conflicts in the draft.
>

At least that's not how I understood Bechet's presentation at Prague.. 
Now, I am confused.

>Formulation of  a prospective NCoA  is a main idea of  RFC4068. 
>But in Point-to-Point link model, it is impossible to 
>formulate the NCoA according to  RFC4068 because there is no 
>proper prefix.
>

Well, you have the ability to return an NCoA in Hack from the NAR. 
In this case, the MN does not formulate its own NCoA.

If there is something else we need to work on, please propose text 
for the issue and what needs to be done.

Regards,

-Rajeev

>
>BR
>Frank
>
>
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "Daniel Park" <soohong.park@samsung.com>
>To: <mipshop@ietf.org>
>Cc: <16ng@ietf.org>
>Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2007 9:34 PM
>Subject: [16NG] FW: Call for Review on FMIP6 over IEEE 802.16e Networks
>
>
>> To MIPSHOP WG, 
>> 
>> Here is another expert review on "draft-ietf-mipshop-fh80216e-01",
>> particularly, IEEE 802.21 relevant texts in this draft.
>> 
>> Reviewer (Yoshihiro Ohba) is a IETF official liaison from IEEE 802.21
>> 
>> Thanks Yoshihiro and hope this helps...
>> 
>> 
>> ----
>> 
>> Daniel Park & Gabriel Montenegro
>> Chairs, 16NG Working Group
>> 
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>-----------------
>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 16NG mailing list
>> 16NG@ietf.org
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng
>> 
>
>_______________________________________________
>Mipshop mailing list
>Mipshop@ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop
>

_______________________________________________
16NG mailing list
16NG@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng