Re: [Mobopts] IRSG Poll forI-D:draft-irtf-mobopts-location-privacy-solutions

"Koodli, Rajeev" <rkoodli@starentnetworks.com> Tue, 17 March 2009 22:24 UTC

Return-Path: <rkoodli@starentnetworks.com>
X-Original-To: mobopts@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mobopts@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 113693A6B23 for <mobopts@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 15:24:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.399, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eY6C4a6-8JvJ for <mobopts@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 15:24:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0.starentnetworks.com (mx0.starentnetworks.com [12.38.223.203]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10DF13A67D2 for <mobopts@irtf.org>; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 15:24:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mx0.starentnetworks.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50CC790051 for <mobopts@irtf.org>; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 17:24:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mx0.starentnetworks.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx0.starentnetworks.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 18538-04 for <mobopts@irtf.org>; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 17:24:47 -0500 (EST)
Received: from exchtewks1.starentnetworks.com (exchtewks1.starentnetworks.com [10.2.4.28]) by mx0.starentnetworks.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for <mobopts@irtf.org>; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 17:24:47 -0500 (EST)
Received: from exchtewks3.starentnetworks.com ([10.2.4.31]) by exchtewks1.starentnetworks.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 17 Mar 2009 18:22:27 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 18:22:26 -0400
Message-ID: <4D35478224365146822AE9E3AD4A26660741C348@exchtewks3.starentnetworks.com>
In-Reply-To: <C304DB494AC0C04C87C6A6E2FF5603DB220C9F0127@NDJSSCC01.ndc.nasa.gov>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Mobopts] IRSG Poll forI-D:draft-irtf-mobopts-location-privacy-solutions
Thread-Index: AcmMoAJrECRqzS1pjkyOYuqkhWO/NwMhdCAQAW723rAAxi0cVwAYORGwATzXH+A=
From: "Koodli, Rajeev" <rkoodli@starentnetworks.com>
To: <mobopts@irtf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Mar 2009 22:22:27.0032 (UTC) FILETIME=[DA683580:01C9A74E]
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new 2.2.1 (20041222) at mx0.starentnetworks.com
Subject: Re: [Mobopts] IRSG Poll forI-D:draft-irtf-mobopts-location-privacy-solutions
X-BeenThere: mobopts@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobility Optimizations <mobopts.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/mobopts>, <mailto:mobopts-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/mobopts>
List-Post: <mailto:mobopts@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mobopts-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/mobopts>, <mailto:mobopts-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 22:24:13 -0000

Hi Wes,

Thanks for your review, and vote. Please some comments inline:
 
> One substance nit is that the requirements listed in section
> 3 lack any associated "rationale" statements.  Including some 
> rationale alongside each requirement is general practice in 
> formal requirements management.

This is just a very basic set of requirements (such as use MIP6
framework, do not alter IPsec etc.) set forth for the solutions. We feel
it is fairly self-explanatory, and prefer to refer the reader to a basic
understanding of MIP6. 
 
> 
> Another nit is that the document generally phrases the 
> problem as being to hide the mapping between "the home 
> address and the care-of address".  I believe it should really 
> be between "the home address and an in-use care-of address", 
> in order to ease later understanding of the applicability to 
> monami6, dsmip, or other extensions that the conclusions say 
> may be in-scope in the future for clarification.
> 

Multiple CoAs may be in-use (in the future), right? If so, the document
is equally applicable.


> The problem of location privacy is very complex, and the 
> document does a good job of tracking each concern and clearly 
> explaining what appears in each relevant header and option 
> field in the stack so that the impact can be readily 
> assessed.  I appreciated this.

Thanks.

> 
> There are some editorial nits, but I believe they're minor 
> enough that the RFC Editor will fix them.

Okay.

Regards,

-Rajeev


> 
> ---------------------------
> Wes Eddy
> Network & Systems Architect
> Verizon FNS / NASA GRC
> Office: (216) 433-6682
> ---------------------------
>  
> 
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: mobopts-bounces@irtf.org
> >[mailto:mobopts-bounces@irtf.org] On Behalf Of 
> >Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com
> >Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 11:41 PM
> >To: irsg@ISI.EDU
> >Cc: basavarj.patil@nokia.com; mobopts@irtf.org
> >Subject: Re: [Mobopts] IRSG Poll
> >forI-D:draft-irtf-mobopts-location-privacy-solutions
> >
> >
> >Hello,
> >
> >The deadline for the IRSG poll for I-D: 
> >draft-irtf-mobopts-location-privacy-solutions expired on Feb 26th.
> >
> >So far we have received one no objection vote. Would like to 
> >hear from a few other people.
> >I am extending the deadline to March 15th. Please respond to 
> the poll.
> >
> >Again the choices are:
> >
> >    o  'Ready to publish' -- requires a thorough read and reasonably
> >        detailed review
> >
> >    o  'Not ready to publish' -- requires a thorough read,
> >       reasonably detailed review, and actionable comments.
> >
> >    o  'No objection' -- I don't object if this document
> >      goes forward;
> >       I've read the document (perhaps quickly); I have some small
> >       comments which are not show stoppers; I don't have great
> >       expertise in the area.
> >
> >    o  'Request more time to review' -- a commitment to provide a
> >       thorough review in a specified period of time.
> >
> >Rgds,
> >-Basavaraj
> >
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: mobopts-bounces@irtf.org
> >> > [mailto:mobopts-bounces@irtf.org] On Behalf Of
> >> > Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com
> >> > Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 3:25 PM
> >> > To: irsg@isi.edu
> >> > Cc: Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com; mobopts@irtf.org
> >> > Subject: [Mobopts] IRSG Poll for
> >> > I-D:draft-irtf-mobopts-location-privacy-solutions
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Hello,
> >> >
> >> > The Mobopts RG I-D:
> >> > draft-irtf-mobopts-location-privacy-solutions has completed IRSG
> >> > review.
> >> > The revised version of the I-D (Rev 12) which incorporates the
> >> > comments is now available at:
> >> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-mobopts-locatio
> >> > n-privacy-solu
> >> > tions-12.txt.
> >> >
> >> > Michael Welzl who has performed the IRSG review and the 
> Mobopts RG
> >> > have approved the revised I-D to be progressed for publication.
> >> >
> >> > The IRSG review is available from the IRTF tracker web page at:
> >> > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/ticket/24
> >> >
> >> > Please consider this email as the start of a two week IRSG
> >> poll. The
> >> > deadline for this poll is : Feb 26th, 2009.
> >> >
> >> > Please use one of the poll responses defined below.
> >> > The possible poll responses are:
> >> >
> >> >     o  'Ready to publish' -- requires a thorough read and 
> >reasonably
> >> >         detailed review
> >> >
> >> >     o  'Not ready to publish' -- requires a thorough read,
> >> reasonably
> >> >        detailed review, and actionable comments.
> >> >
> >> >     o  'No objection' -- I don't object if this document
> >> goes forward;
> >> >        I've read the document (perhaps quickly); I have 
> some small
> >> >        comments which are not show stoppers; I don't have great
> >> >        expertise in the area.
> >> >
> >> >     o  'Request more time to review' -- a commitment to provide a
> >> >        thorough review in a specified period of time.
> >> >
> >> > The most relevant rule is that "At least two other IRSG members
> >> > (besides the one sponsoring the document) need to vote 'ready to
> >> > publish' for the document to move forward."
> >> >
> >> > Please review and submit your vote.
> >> >
> >> > -Basavaraj
> >> > Document Shepherd for the I-D
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Mobopts mailing list
> >> > Mobopts@irtf.org
> >> > http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/mobopts
> >> >
> >
> >
> >This email and any attachments may contain legally privileged 
> >and/or confidential information of Starent Networks, Corp. and 
> >is intended only for the individual or entity named in the 
> >message.  The information transmitted may not be used to 
> >create or change any contractual obligations of Starent 
> >Networks, Corp.  Any review, retransmission, dissemination or 
> >other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this 
> >e-mail and its attachments by persons or entities other than 
> >the intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not the 
> >intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately -- by 
> >replying to this message or by sending an email to 
> >postmaster@starentnetworks.com -- and destroy all copies of 
> >this message and any attachments without reading or disclosing 
> >their contents. Thank you.
> >_______________________________________________
> >Mobopts mailing list
> >Mobopts@irtf.org
> >http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/mobopts
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Mobopts mailing list
> Mobopts@irtf.org
> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/mobopts
>