[Mip6] draft-ietf-mip6-mn-ident-option-02.txt
Margaret Wasserman <margaret@thingmagic.com> Sat, 14 May 2005 17:01 UTC
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DX013-0004xT-96; Sat, 14 May 2005 13:01:29 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DWYw7-000598-K7 for mip6@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 13 May 2005 08:06:35 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA07842 for <mip6@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 May 2005 08:06:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [204.9.221.21] (helo=thingmagic.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DWZC1-00049K-2y for mip6@ietf.org; Fri, 13 May 2005 08:23:03 -0400
Received: from [66.30.121.250] (account margaret HELO [10.0.0.171]) by thingmagic.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8) with ESMTP-TLS id 366816 for mip6@ietf.org; Fri, 13 May 2005 08:02:19 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p06200711beaa46634c08@[10.0.0.171]>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 08:05:19 -0400
To: mip6@ietf.org
From: Margaret Wasserman <margaret@thingmagic.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 50a516d93fd399dc60588708fd9a3002
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 14 May 2005 13:01:28 -0400
Subject: [Mip6] draft-ietf-mip6-mn-ident-option-02.txt
X-BeenThere: mip6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: mip6.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6>, <mailto:mip6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:mip6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mip6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6>, <mailto:mip6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: mip6-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: mip6-bounces@ietf.org
Hi All, This is a follow-up message regarding draft-ietf-mip6-mn-ident-option-02.txt. I have attached the IESG review comments on this document. The comments marked "discuss" are blocking issues that need to be resolved before the document will be approved for publication. There are also non-blocking comments (marked "comment") that should be considered by the WG but will not block publication. There was one "discuss" registered on this document (by Sam Hartman) that should probably be discussed and resolved by the WG. Raj and Gopal, do you know when we should expect an update to the document that addresses this concern and fixes the other minor issues included in the comments? Thanks, Margaret Sam Hartman: Discuss: [2005-03-01] This document fails to explain how the identity option interacts with the IKE identity payloads or really how it interacts at all with the base MIPV6 spec. This needs to be explained. IT may have been the intent that this option not be used with base MIPV6 but for example only used with the authentication option and other extensions. If so, that needs to be explained and there needs to be at least one such use that is standards track if this is going to be published as standards track. In addition, this specification does not make any particular form of the identity option mandatory to implement. To create interoperable implementations, this specification needs to specify a mandatory to implement form of the option. Scott Hollenbeck: Comment: [2005-02-25] RFC 2119 should be added as a normative reference. It's mentioned in section 2, but not cited. Russ Housley: Comment: [2005-03-01] In the Abstract: s/Mobile IP6/Mobile IPv6/ _______________________________________________ Mip6 mailing list Mip6@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6
- [Mip6] draft-ietf-mip6-mn-ident-option-02.txt Margaret Wasserman