Re: [Mip4] WGLC for draft-ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base-02.txt

I support the advancement of this document to the IESG with a request for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC when the following comment is addressed. 

- The issue about foreign agent care of mode must be clarified. 

As it is now, it's ambiguous whether foreign agent care of mode is supported with the mechanisms in this document. Further, if it is supported, if it's mandatory double tunneling or something like draft-ietf-mip4-nemov4-fa that applies. 

Sorry for being late

best regards
/// Hasse 

On 2007-09-19 20:20, McCann Peter-A001034 wrote:
> This message announces a 2-week working group last call on:
>
> "Network Mobility (NEMO) Extensions for Mobile IPv4"
> draft-ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base-02.txt
>
> The last call will end at 24:00 UTC on Wednesday, October 3rd 2007.
>
> This document describes a protocol for supporting Mobile Networks
> between a Mobile Router and a Home Agent by extending the Mobile IPv4
> protocol.  A Mobile Router is responsible for the mobility of one or
> more network segments or subnets moving together.  The Mobile Router
> hides its mobility from the nodes on the mobile network.  The nodes
> on the Mobile Network may be fixed in relationship to the Mobile
> Router and may not have any mobility function.
>
> Extensions to Mobile IPv4 are introduced to support Mobile Networks.
>
> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mip4-nemo-v4-base-02.txt
>
> Please respond to this working group last call:
>
> * If you have no comments on the draft, and support its advancement,
>   simply respond with a line containing something like
>
>     "I support the advancement of this document to the IESG with a
>      request for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC."
>
>    If you have comments, please use a line similar to the one above,
>    and supplement this with your comments.
>
>
> * If you *don't* support its advancement, respond with a line
>   containing something like the following, supplemented by your
>   comments -
>
>     "I don't support the advancement of this document to the IESG with
>      a request for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC, for the
>      following reasons:"
>     ...
>
> Please direct all replies to the Mobile IPv4 mailing list,
> mip4@ietf.org.
>
> -Pete & Henrik
>
>
>   

-- 
Mip4 mailing list: Mip4@ietf.org
    Web interface: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4
     Charter page: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/mip4-charter.html
Supplemental site: http://www.mip4.org/